[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] finish. >> and very quickly there'll be a lunch break for about an hour in the discussion we just, we've been showing you at the brookings institution. it'll continue for about 90 minutes. there'll be a panel on improving government performance. we'll have it live for you here on c-span2. yesterday and today johns hopkins university in baltimore has been hosting a summit on

reducing gun violence. speakers have included new york city mayor michael bloomberg and maryland governor martin o'malley. this afternoon at 4 eastern they will hold a news conference to release their recommendations for stemming gun violence. we'll have live coverage here on c-span2. again, that will be at 4 p.m. eastern. and right around this time to have year every year governors address their state legislatures on the state of their states. laying out the priorities for the new year. tonight at 7:30 we'll take you live to the kansas statehouse for an address by the state's governor, sam brownback. that'll get underway at 7:30 eastern. >> he had been talking about this dream that he had had. he had talked about it for years, you know? the american dream. and that had become his dream. and he had been in detroit just a few months before, and he had talked about, you know, i have a dream that america will someday realize these principles in the

deck declaration of independence. so i think he was of just inspired by that moment. >> sunday on "after words," clayborn carson participated in the 1963 march on washington to prominent historian and editor of martin luther king jr.'s papers. it's part of three days of booktv this weekend monday featuring authors and books on the inauguration, president obama and martin luther king jr. this coming sunday president obama will officially be sworn into office in a privateer isny at the white house. live coverage will start at 10:30 eastern time along with your phone calls. and then monday it's the public inaugural ceremonies including the swearing-in at noon eastern, the inaugural luncheon and the afternoon parade along pennsylvania avenue. and throughout the day we will take your phone calls and comments on facebook and twitr. live coverage starts at 7 a.m. ian on c-span, c-span radio and

c-span.org. last week the supreme court heard argument on the issue of whether police officers can force suspected drunk drivers to give a blood sample without first obtaining a warrant. the case, missouri v. mcfoley, pits -- mcneely is in the 4 amendment's ban against unreasonable searches and seizure. >> we'll hear argument first this morning in case number 11125, missouri v. mcneely. mr. coaster? >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: in the course of a drunk driving investigation quickly securing blood alcohol evidence with as little delay as possible is incredibly important. >> how come it took so long for this state to figure out that it needed to do this without a

warrant? the officer testified that he's been making drunk driving arrests for years. >> yes, your honor. >> i think in only one circumstance did he need to do it without a warrant. so what made this, the need here eminent in the sense of impractical to get the warrant? >> well, your honor, back in 2003 there was an appellate court case from missouri that dealt with the importance of the words -- >> no, no, i understand why he decided to do it. to forgo getting a warrant. isn't his testimony dispositive of this case? he had time to get it. >> your honor, that ignores the fact that had he sought a warrant, no question that he would have been able to secure a warrant. the issue was it was going to take a considerable amount of time. >> but it took a considerable amount of time for all the years he did i. >> that's true, your honor. >> and he didn't testify to it

causing a loss of any particular case. >> but in this particular case it was going to take 90 minutes to two hours to secure the warrant. and during that period of time, the most probative evidence was going to be dissipating and was going to -- >> but he said, he said in the ten or so cases he had had in the past, "i encountered no difficulty getting a warrant in prior cases." there was nothing that distinguished this case on the facts of other cases on the facts. >> that's correct, justice ginsburg. he never had a problem securing a warrant, but there was a delay. and that's the difference. we're looking at a delay and quickly securing blood alcohol evidence is important because the evidence is being lost at a significant rate with every minute that passes. >> what constitutional right exists for a state to get the

best evidence? >> well, justice society my or your, i think that -- sotomayor, i think that is something we should always strive for, to be able to get the best possible evidence in a case. >> no, no, no, you, the state wants to strive for that. but what in the fourth amendment contemplates that that's a right the state must have? >> well -- >> that it has to get the very best evidence it can? >> the touchstep of any fourth amendment analysis is the reasonableness of the search. >> so how can it be reasonable to forgo the fourth amendment in a procedure as intrusive as a needle going into someone's body? i say this because breathalyzers, in my mind, have a much different intrusion level. they don't intrude into your body. and, um, i think almost all

jurisdictions use breathalyzers instead of blood tests. small fraction that actually use blood tests. ruling by us today is going to change that and is going to -- if in your favor, is going to change that and put sort of a print, the court's print on use the most intrusive way you can to prove your case. >> and, justice sotomayor, i would disagree with that. if the court rules in our favor, i think the end result will be more people will agree to take the breathalyzer test. in this case the arresting officer gave the defendant an option to take the breathalyzer test. and when he clearly told him he was not going to take it, that's when he decided to take him to the hospital in order to draw the blood. >> why don't you force him to take the breathalyzer test instead of forcing him to have a needle shoved in his arm? >> for practical -- >> what is the difference between the reliability or the

acceptability by juries of a breathalyzer test as opposed to a blood draw? >> justice scalia, both tests are very reliable. we rely on the breathalyzer tests on a daily basis, but for practical reasons it's very difficult to force a drunk driver to take a breath test. the breathalyzer instruments, they measure deep lung avenue goal lahr air, and you have to take a very deep breath. one police officer told me it's sort of like you can put a balloon in front of somebody's mouth, but you can't make them blow it up. it's or very difficult for practical reasons to force someone to plow into the breathalyzer. >> if we're talking about reasonableness, do you think it's relevant for us to look to the rules and practices of other states? >> justice kennedy, as the respondent points out, there are

25 states that would be opposed to the warrantless blood draw in this case. and as i point out in the reply brief, 15 of those states have joined amicus delaware urging this court to reverse the decision of the missouri supreme court -- >> but the fact that those states do have a warrant requirement and from what we can best tell make it work very well including some expedited procedures where you can get warrants within minutes, takes usually the policeman, say, 20 minutes just to get to the hospital or the police station anyway. >> and -- >> and if we see that other states, a significant amount of other states, number one, require the warrant; number two, many of those have expedited procedures, does that bear on our determination of reasonableness? >> i don't believe it does, justice kennedy. i think as virginia v. moore plainly teaches, individual state laws do not effect whether or not this activity was reasonable under the

constitution. >> but we have always, and correct me if i'm wrong, i think that we have always thought of fourth amendment reasonableness standards as being a national standard. suppose 40 states, you know, we can play the game, suppose 40 states had rules, had warrants and many of them had expedited procedures. that's still irrelevant? we don't look at that at a all? >> your honor, i think this court's decision in sampson v. california is instruct i. in that particular case the court approves suspicionless searches, and i think a vast majority of states disapproved of that particular law enforcement practice. but that does not bear on the issue of whether or not that violates the fourth amendment. >> of course, we don't know why they disapproved, and i guess your point is they may well have not permitted it because they were under what you would call the mistaken belief that it was unconstitutional? >> i suppose that is, that is a possibility, justice scalia. >> any issue in the conviction

rates in those states that in states where the practice is to take the -- >> your honor, i think the national district attorneys' association cited a study. i know the respondent also cited a study that shows it's, it doesn't have any bearing. but i think it's pretty clear that if you have concrete evidence of a drunk driver's blood alcohol content, caron crete evidence, that gives you -- concrete evidence, that gives you a far greater case, a far greater chance of securing a conviction at trial -- >> so the new rule is we have to strengthen b the fourth amendment's going to be suspended whenever the prosecution can't get the best evidence to make its case out? >> no. justice sotomayor, i think as long as a police officer has probable cause, what we're saying is it's objectively -- >> probable cause is not enough.

if you have probable cause, then you can get a warrant. but it was, and i think still is, the main rule that if you can get a warrant, you must do that. the probable cause is surely not enough, then we'd never need a warrant when there's probable cause. >> you're absolutely right, justice ginsburg. probable cause is not enough. but probable cause coupled with the indisputable fact that alcohol is eliminated from the human body with every minute that passes after a drunk driver -- >> mr. koester, suppose instead of waiting two hours there were procedures in place in missouri and, indeed, across the country where it was possible to get a warrant if these circumstances within 15 or 20 minutes. would you still be saying that there is a sufficient exigency to avoid the warrant requirement? >> i think if a particular jurisdiction had perfected the warrant process to the point where they could routinely

obtain search warrants in 15 minutes, i think we would have a different outcome. i think that would affect the analysis of the case. but with all due respect to the hypothetical, it is a time-consuming process to obtain search warrants. >> so why can't you do that? i mean, the only virtue i see in saying you have to go get a warrant is the officer picks up the phone. there's usually somebody on duty, a magistrate somewhere. he phones him up and says i have a drunk driver here, he's wobbling, he can't cross the center line, and he won't take a breathalyzer, i want to give him a test. now, you have a second judgment. and the officer has to talk to somebody, so he, so there's a little more careful. and that's a protection not necessarily for this person, but a protection for others who maybe weren't wobbling. all right, so i think that's the question you're being asked. why, what's the problem with doing that, which adds a little bit of security that this

warrant really is, that this search is really necessary? >> justice breyer, i think in practical application it is going to be more of a time-consuming process, though, to obtain the search -- >> why wouldn't it take, let's see, how long did it take me to say that? it took me about 30 seconds. so even if you're a lot more careful, why would it take more than three minutes? >> to obtain a search warrant -- >> you do just what i said, and this man or woman who is there is not a policeman. that's the virtue of it, this man or woman is trained to listen the policemen and others say things and try and pin 'em down a little bit and make an independent judgment. so why would it take more than five minutes? >> well, justice breyer, that's why i drew the analogy between the telephonic search warrants that were approved back in the 1970s. it sounds like that would be an instantaneous procedure, but some of the lower courts that have actually examined the process, they came to the

conclusion that it's still a time-consuming process. >> in most jurisdictions, unless i'm mistaken, the cop on the beat cannot apply for and get a search warrant. he has to go through a prosecuting attorney or someone in the prosecutor's office first. so it's not just getting hold of a judge, it's getting hold of the prosecutor first and then getting hold of a judge if the prosecutor approves it, right? >> that is absolutely -- >> is that the case in missouri? >> that is the case in missouri. >> and in some cases, i suppose, the judges actually want to read the affidavit and give it some thought. it's not going to be three minutes. >> that's exactly right, mr. chief justice. i think if we were to the point where we were approving search warrants in three minutes, it would essentially be a rubber stash. >> we do have, i think, an indication that there are jurisdictions that do it inside of a half hour. >> that may be true, justice --

>> so -- [inaudible conversations] >> 15 or 20 would be a different case. i'm wondering where you would draw the line. >> that's a difficult question to draw a bright line for exactly when we would draw the line, um, where the exigency would disappear. >> so would the importance of the search warrant suggest there's a constitutional right, suggest that we should judge reasonableness by the people who are the least efficient or by the people who are the most reasonably efficient in. >> well, justice sotomayor -- >> meaning people, police jurisdictions. >> and, of course, local law enforcement practices are going to vary from jurisdiction to to jurisdiction -- >> absolutely. but should they, should we permit them to vary in terms of inefficiency, or should we be encouraging them to vary within a reasonable range? >> well, i think prosecutors are always going to strive to obtain search warrants as efficiently

as possible. but whether or not this was a reasonable search does not depend upon local police practices. if there are no further questions, i'd like to reserve the balance -- >> yeah. members of the court have intruded on your rebuttal time, including me, so we'll give you a little extra. >> thank you. [background sounds] >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, here the police are facing the certain destruction of critical blood alcohol evidence. every minute counts, and it's reasonable for the officers to proceed without a warrant. i'd like to take off where some of the court's questions led off, this idea that we might live in a world where warrants could be gotten so quickly there is not true exigency. there is substantial variation from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and we're just not in a place where the time to get the warrant everywhere is 15

minutes or less. >> but once we say that you don't need a warrant, you know, even if things improve, the game's up, right? no? >> no, i don't think that that's true at all. the police do not -- >> you mean somebody can come up ten years from now and say although you approved it ten years ago without a warrant, things have changed, so now you need a warrant? >> i think that if the world changed so that every police officer had an ipad and judges were always on duty and that warrants could be gotten that quickly, you would consider that and also the other sources of delay which are the time to get to the hospital, etc., etc., but, yes -- >> if that's the case, then why shouldn't that determination be made case by case? case by case whether, in fact, it would have taken that long to get a warrant? and if it would have taken too long, then it's okay without a warrant in it wouldn't have taken that long, it's bad? totality of the circumstances test, right? >> right. but the totality of the circumstances are with respect to the destruction of evidence

and what the police are witnessing. they know there's certain destruction of evidence, and what they're weighing that against is uncertainty about whether there's time to get a warrant. they have no idea what this person's blood alcohol content is, they have no idea -- >> with ms. saharsky, what about saying at least they should try so that a number of juris or dictions can do this within a half hour, say initiate the process while you're going to the hospital, when a half hour is up, you proceed? but at least there's been an effort to -- >> i think there are legal problems with that and practical problems with that. the legal problems, the court has never suggested the police require a warrant -- >> we have, i don't want to -- because you have multiple answers, but on that point we do talk about exigent circumstances, and if we proceed as justice ginsburg's suggestion indicates, then the fact that you can't get a warrant within

45 minutes is the exigent circumstance. >> right. i mean, in all of the destruction of evidence cases, the court has said if there's destruction of evidence, we're not going to make you wait until half of it is destroyed or three-fourths of it is destroyed, and that is the rule -- >> [inaudible] said 30 minutes. >> right. and what i'm saying is as a practical matter, i think it would be very difficult to suspect that nationwide folks could get warrants in those circumstances. you typically have one police officer on the scene who's asking the person questions, taking him through the field sobriety tests. that would have to be the offer who would do -- >> well, jurisdictions have an incentive to get a warrant, i would think. even if they, even if we were to say they don't need one, they certainly have a strong incentive to get warrants because it insulates the search to a much greater degree from later challenge. and a suppression hearing. so why shouldn't it depend on the practicalities in a particular jurisdiction? not every jurisdiction has

prosecutors and judges who are staying up at, you know, 3:00 in the morning on sunday morning waiting for the phone b to ring or for, to receive some sort of an electronic message that there's been a stop can -- a stop and somebody wants a search warrant. maybe big jurisdictions can do that, but small ones can't. if you're in a jurisdiction that feels they can afford that, then why should the fourth amendment permit the search to take place without the warrant? when it could have been obtained practically? >> well, a couple of responses. first of all, this court makes nationwide rules, and the question is whether it's reasonable to do it in missouri or here even if other jurisdictions would choose to or could do it differently. second, with respect to this idea that it should matter the time to get a warrant, is something the court has never done. and it may be the case that a court looking backwards could say we think you had enough time to get a warm, but the police officer knows few thingses -- he knows one thing for sure, that evidence is going to be lost,

and it's critical evidence. it's not just to get above .08, but you have these laws that are enhanced -- >> i thought that we often said you look at whether or not you can get a warrant before you can break in so that the drugs aren't flushed down the toilet, so forth. we make that judgment all the time, and if that showing does not make, get a warrant. so i think it's quite incorrect to say we don't look at the time factor. >> i think it matters -- >> we look at it all the time. >> i think it matters as a general matter whether warrants take time to get and whether evidence is lost, but the court has never second guesses the police in the way the court is suggesting today. in kentucky v. king, for example, in exigency case, the court said we're not going to make them use the least restrictive way. >> i agree that there's a uniform standard, and i don't know if you ever did finish the answer to justice ginsburg, but she had suggested that we have a uniform rule of economy gent

circumstances. that, her suggestion complies with your objection. >> well, if i'm understanding it correctly, i think our point is this, which is that the police officers have to act reasonably in the situation. in the situation they know for sure the evidence is going to be lost, they know that every minute is critical, for example -- >> so many situations in which we require a warrant, nevertheless. when there's drug dealing in a house, every time -- it's almost a certainty that they're going to use the drugs, and that evidence is going to disappear. you rely on knowing that there's likely to be telltale signs left over. and that's the same thing you do in an alcohol situation. you rely on the testimony of the police officer, you rely on the implied consent presumption. it's not as if this is destruction of all evidence. and not like a fleeing situation where someone gets away, you

have nothing left. this is vastly different. >> i mean, with respect we disagree. this evidence is critical, and the number matters. i mean, it is the case that blood alcohol evidence is the most important evidence. this court has recognized this in several cases, and since then the law has only changed to make it more important in -- >> you mentioned schmerber. why did the court go through all the -- why couldn't it have made a much shorter opinion by simply saying, yeah, blood alcohol dissipates? but it didn't. it pointed out that in that particular case there was a delay to investigate the accident. the person had to be taken to the hospital for care, so how much time elapsed? i think it was two hours, wasn't it? >> the court made a mention of two hours, but that was not a

critical portion of its analysis. we don't think that mattered because the court said, first, there was clear probable cause in that situation. second of all -- >> then why was it in the opinion? >> well, it's one line in the opinion if you look at it. the court says we're told the percentage of alcohol in the blood begins to dissipate. time has to be taken to investigate the scene. >> yes. they didn't need to say any of that. >> they said particularly. what we'd say is if there was some uncertainty -- >> doesn't mean that there was enough east. >> that gets me to the second part of my answer which is that the courts are relied on this evidence, winston v. and even in a footnote in kentucky v. king. this court has not said anything about the person having to go to the hospital and whether -- >> come from missouri tells us, ms. saharsky, that the breathalyzer's just as good and

that, in fact, he expects that the consequence of our ruling in his favor of this case will be that drunken drivers will agree to the breathalyzer test. but i don't know why it isn't adequate to produce that result simply to put the drunk ben driver in a paddy wagon and on the way to the hospital say, you know, we're going to be in the hospital in 20 minutes, we're applying for a warrant, when we get there, you know, we're going to stick a needle in your arm unless, of course, you agree to take the breathalyzer test. white isn't that enough -- why isn't that enough to force them into the breathalyzer? >> i think they're willing to take their chances that the evidence is going to dissipate below the .08 standard and then be able to challenge it as opposed to if they gave the evidence that they potentially wouldn't be able to challenge it. i think -- >> maybe they're drunk. [laughter]

>> but, but, i mean, justice scalia raises a point which is you always have some delay unless you're talking about sticking a needle in somebody roadside. you have to take them to the hospital. is so there's going to be some amount of time which you're going to lose. and why can't you use that amount of time, if you can, to try to get a warrant? >> well, i think there are two answers. one, you typically as a practical matter have one officer on the scene proceeding with this, and he's the one who would have to prepare the affidavit, he's the one that's going to drive to the hospital, presumably we don't want him texting during driving, etc. the court has been hesitant to second guess the police in these circumstances and to say they have to troy to get a -- try to get the second -- >> i think you should be fair. he doesn't have to prepare a written affidavit in a number of of these states. it's a telephonic warrant. >> even in some of the telephonic warrant procedures, you still have to have a written

document. you write it out and, actually, a record needs to be made of it. the case of united states v. reid in the fourth said it sounds like it won't take that long, but it turns out these procedures take a while. it's the initial time that had been taken at the stop, the investigation, the field sobriety test, and sometimes these folks get to the hospital, and they're not given first priority, so there's sometimes some waiting at the hospital. >> so is it okay to let the police officers take the blood? blel, we think that's a different question and one that the court reserved in schmerber. there was a medical personnel taking the blood in that case, but it's said if we had a different case, we'd is ask whether the situation invited an unjustified element of personal risk of infection and pain. so we think the court should get a case that has a record on this, and then it could make a determination -- >> if we rule in your favor, we will. >> i'm not sure that that's true. the reason that a few states have considered is basically out

of necessity. it is just in rural jurisdictions it's too far to get to the nearest hospital. but it's fair to say that police officers do not want to be in this business of taking blood. it diverts them from their other activities, it's an extensive training property. property -- process. >> you want to be in those rural places and be stopped without a independent magistrate approving a field officer taking blood from you? >> what i'm saying is that there are only a few states that are doing it now, and i think it is -- it should be, the court should wait until it actually has a record to make that determination. you know, there has been training along those lines. it's something that the d. of transportation has helped these states investigate whether it's a real option because the police officers are very far away from, you know, the near hospital, and it's all based on this concern about destruction of evidence. but just to get back to -- >> do you think, going back to justice scalia's question, if a person does take a breathalyzer, is there ever a reason for a

warrantless blood test? >> yes. as a general matter, you would not need to obtain a blood test practically because the evidence is not the same, but substantially as good. .. it was reasonable for the police to say we no this evidence is going away. we know it is going to be lost. maybe we can get a warrant

quickly. maybe we can't. we don't know what his blood-alcohol is. whether it will dip below, 1.5 or .08. but we'll proceed. >> talk about losing evidence any second. i suppose the exact same thing could be said in other alcohol-related crimes. public drunkenness, underage drinking. you wouldn't make the same arguments there would you? >> the question you ask is reasonable balancing tests but i think the government interests on the side of that balance would be different from the one at issue here. the court said drunk drive something serious public safety problem. we're talking about one person being killed every 51 minutes despite everything we've done. >> not just exigency. you're saying there should be a way for cost and benefit here. >> that is what the court did. it looked a intrusiveness and need for the evidence in the case and positing we suspect the court is not as strong as evidence here. just to get back to some questions the court had

about the time to get warrants, the evidence that the court has before it would take a the least a hour and a half or two hours to get warrant here that is the joint appendix, page 54. even though the person says, one officer said he could get in touch with a prosecutor and judge he did not quantify how long it would take. there is also exhibit. >> incidentally. wasn't clear to me. one hour from the time, two hours from the time of the stop or two hours from the time he put him in the back of the patrol car, do we know? >> not entirely clear. i think two hours total. page 70 of the joint appendix, made it like 1 1/2 hours to two hours total. >> finish the thought. >> one other piece of date which is a nhtsa study referred to in the briefs where folks in four states where warrants were required tried to get them as quickly as possible. they put the judges on staff. they tried to do it electronically much as possible and still there it was 1 1/2 to two hours. that is on page 37 of that study. >> thank you, counsel. mr. shapiro. >> mr. chief justice and may

it please the court. the issue in this case whether the case may stick a needle in the arm of everyone arrested on suspicion of drunk driving without a warrant and without consent. missouri's answer to that question is yes, even in routine dwi cases like this and regardless how quickly and easily a warrant could be obtained. >> i thought the question was if in fact the person would not agree to a breathalyzer? >> the question is, it is not clear to me, number one, your honor, nothing in the record to suggest that the driver is always first offered opportunity, the choice of choosing a breathalyzer. >> if was offered breathalyzer twice. >> client was offered breathalyzer. >> how many times? >> declined twice, that's correct, your honor. under missouri's proposed rule there is no role for neutral and detached magistrate. the decision whether an individual can be ride to submit to nonconsensual blood draw handcuffed and physically restrained as my client was -- >> boils down to my mind at

least it of course it would be better to have a neutral person hear what the policeman has to say and to act as second judgment on that. it would, maybe it, less likely that people who are really innoncent in fact have this happen to them. and so forth. but, there they are arguing that's a considerable burden in many, but not all states. and at some point, and the addition, in respect to the second judgment, namely the magistrates that you get, is not worth really, what you're going to lose, which are going to be people who are drunk, driving around on roads and possibly killing people. we all know how that can be built up too. all right, at some point i wish you would spend some time addressing that practical argument. >> i would be happy to answer that question right now, your honor. i think there are two responses. one is missouri specific and case specific and one is more generic because i think

it is morn to remember they are not asking simply to reverse the suppression motion in this case on the grounds that the facts of this case made it reasonable to do a warrantless blood draw. what missouri and the united states are urge something categorical exemption to the warren requirement in all dwi cases nationwide. so we -- >> is this a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing? i mean what, what advantage do you think your client would really get from the warrant requirement other than the delay that that would entile -- entail allowing his blood-alcohol to reduce itself? are, for some warrants, let's say a warrant to go into a building where the police contend there may be drugs, the policeman will, will, you know, the magistrate will say, you know, what evidence do you have there is drugs?

two weeks ago we had the informer. yesterday we saw this and such. all sorts of different factors. in these dui cases it is always going to be the same thing. policeman will say, well, you know, his breath smelled of alcohol. we gave him walk the straight line and turn around test. he flunked it. he couldn't touch his nose with his index finger. what is the impartial magistrate possibly going to do except to say, hey, you know, that is probable cause? are any of these warrants ever turned down? are they ever turned down in your experience? >> your honor i do not know the answer. >> i betcha they're not. >> i think it is also true, your honor, that warrants in general are rarely turned down. that the overwhelming percentage of warrant requests in all criminal cases are granted by imagine straits. >> but in many of them there is a lot of judgment that has to be brought to bear. is this a reliable informant? how long ago did he tell you? and so forth. whereas in all of these

cases it will be the same thing. his breath smelled of alcohol. he couldn't walk the straight line. we're not in, and that is the probable cause and i don't see how the independent magistrate will do you a whole lot of good except for the fact that it will delay the process? >> well this court's entire fourth amendment jurisprudence, your honor rests on the proposition the privacy safeguard of the fourth amendment having newt tall and detached magistrate before the state does something intrusive as putting a needle in somebody's arm and i can imagine -- >> the state has a form, we have some forms in the joint appendix. what if it has a form for the officer to fill out? you check certain boxes and then you send this electronically to a magistrate and if the right boxes are checked, the magistrate will grant the warrant? is that, do you think that is consistent with the fourth amendment? >> well that is something very close to what missouri already has, your honor.

in cape girardeau county the prosecutor prepared standardized forms which the police officer fills out, presents to the prosecutor. the prosecutor sends onto the magistrate and the magistrate decides whether to grant the warrant but i think that cuts in exactly the opposite direction which it shows the process of obtaining a warrant is not very elaborate and need not be very timely. i can imagine in answer to justice scalia's questions i can imagine circumstances which an officer might apply for a warrant in a situation where they have not examined, the driver, for example, go through the field sew -- sobriety tests. we stopped the driver on the road. was going over 10 miles over the speed limit. i questioned him. his speech was slurred. his eyes were bloodshot. i want to do a blood test. the magistrate in that circumstance, might say, did you at least perform the field so i bright test? did you offer -- >> what about the field sobriety test? suppose that, the person who is apprehended and is suspected of being drunk says, i'm not going to walk

a straight line? i'm going to just sit here? you can't make me do anything without a warrant? do you need, if the defendant doesn't consent, do you need a warrant to, to have the standard sobriety tests? >> do you mean, do you need a warrant to have the field sobriety tests? is that the question, justice ginsburg? i don't think you need a warrant to require somebody to put his finger to his nose or to walk a straight line or to stand on one foot. i would not say that that is a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment that trigger the warrant requirement but there is no doubt putting a needle in somebody's arm triggers a warrant requirement. >> what about breathalyzer, do you need a warrant for that? >> i think you probably do need a warrant for a breathalyzer, your honor. but, missouri's position is, you not only don't need a warrant for a breathalyzer,

you don't need a warrant for a blood test. this is not a breathalyzer case. >> i know what missouri's position is and i know it is not a breathalyzer test but if the logic of your position leads to the requirement of a warrant for a breathalyzer that would be pertinent in analyzing your position. >> i think, your honor, it, i would say that requiring somebody to produce, to breathe into a machine for, in order to gather evidence for the state's prosecution is a state, is a search that should probably trigger the warrant requirement but it is certainly a less, it is certainly less intrusive, your honor, it is certainly less intrusive than the blood test. >> that bears considerably on the reasonableness, doesn't it? i don't know why you want to bite of more than you can chew. >> certainly, i want to bite off --. >> what is reasonable for sticking a needle in your arm not necessarily reasonable for asking you to blow up a balloon. >> your honor, i certainly want to bite oaf as little as i have to chew in this case but there are two salient facts because i

think it is important to focus what is before the court in this case and what is before the court in this case is warrantless blood draw. the two salient facts in my mind, one i said case specific. you have a state trooper here who has been doing this for 17 1/2 years. he testifies at the suppression hearing that he is only been required to seek a warrant, fewer than 10 times. why is that? that is because the overwhelming number of drivers in fact give their consent. and in the 10 cases over those 17 years where he had to seek a warrant, he testifies that he never had any difficulty obtaining a warrant and there is certainly no indication that those warrants in any way interfered with the state'sability to prosecute those cases. >> mr. shapiro, would you tell me, and what i'm deeply troubled about in your argument, you can't in the totality circumstances of test but what circumstances is the court actually looking at to determine whether foregoing the

warrant was necessary or not under that circumstance? we know one, we know where a fatality has occurred or a serious accident because presumably you have to secure the scene and you have to take care of injured people, or cars towed, whatever else it is, but i'm not sure what other circumstances, under your theory would really justify a magistrate, a court below saying, you know, it's okay you didn't get a warrant here? can't be merely because it takes too long to get the warrant because that shows inefficiency. that was part of my question earlier. >> that is exactly correct, your honor. i think the court goat it right in smerber i think the question is are there special facts ex-for instanceant to the warrant process and beyond the control of the police and impede the ability of the police to -- >> if you're in a world jurisdiction and it takes a long time to rouse a

prosecutor and a magistrate at 3:00 in the morning to get the warrant. you would say, that's too bad. the whole country has to operate like new york city. you have to have somebody on duty all the time? >> your honor, cape girardeau county is a rural county in southeastern missouri. >> i'm asking a hypothetical question. there are places like that. i have encountered federal magistrate judges who were unreceptive to receiving warrant applications in the middle of the night. that is known to exist. suppose you have a jurisdiction like that. does that count as a circumstance facts would justify a warrantless taking of blood? >> i would say no, your honor. i don't think the state ought to be able to take advantage of its own failure to modernize and expedite its -- >> suppose the magistrate is unavailable because he or she is ill? >> i think that is different situation, your honor. >> would you agree that is

exigent circumstance which would allow a warrantless blood sample? >> i think it might well if the magistrate were unavailable and there were no alternative magistrate. but the second salient fact -- >> that is separate he request, isn't it? one prong of the argument you need individualized circumstances. you can't have a per se rule. now this other set of questions about what you get to count in the totality of the circumstances test, is that right? >> that is correct, your honor. >> one could disagree with you and one could think as justice a heat oh it -- alito and justice kennedy suggested you take into account it is middle of the night in a rural county and will take two hours. still think that is the analysis you have to go through. >> that is correct, justice kagan. the second fact i want to come back to, and this came up briefly during my opponent's argument, we know that there are half the states in the country by our count, 26 states in the country, that by statute have prohibited warrantless

blood draws in routine dwi cases. they're listed on page 31 of the red brief in footnote 9. given that fact, in the face of that reality, i don't think missouri can plausibly claim that a categorical rule, that would then apapply nationwide if the court announces during the context of this case, that warrants are never required in routine dwi cases, that satisfy the standard this court established. namely the exception to the warrant requirement being proposed serves law enforcement needs so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively, reasonable in every case. there is no evidence that i am aware of, in response to justice kennedy's question, and there is no record in the evidence in this case or the briefs in this case that those 25 states, that prohibit warrantless blood draws in the circumstances that my client confronted here have a lower conviction rate, are less -- >> there are a lot of states have varying degrees to which they want to enforce

strict rules against drunk driving and, states, that is exactly the kind of thing that worries me on your side. you have a bunch of states say that don't, you, it is not easy to get hold of a magistrate in 15 minutes or so forth. and so what to do about that. if you say you don't have to because you haven't got it provided, you give them every incentive not to make the magistrate available. that is cutting in your favor. on the other hand it's pretty tough to say that all these states have to have the best possible magistrate available 24 hours a day so somebody can call and in 10 instance as year because the guy won't take the blood, won't take the breathalyzer. that is where i am in a dilemma. i'm looking for an answer to that, you don't have absolute rule. i don't see an absolute rule. should you say, look, here's what you have to do? it is better to have a second opinion there which is the magistrate's and so,

on the way to the hospital that is where we started you have to phone and try to get one and if you don't have one by the time you're at the hospital, tell them again, it is your last chance, give us the breath loadser or else and he says no, then you take the blood test? that is a solution? or do you have a better solution? what is the solution to the problem, if you're willing to reject which you're aren't but hypothetically you might be, that there is the absolute rule? >> well i would say several things. first of all, your honor, i really do have no reason to believe there's any jurisdiction in the country at this point that is not deeply concerned about drunk driving or recognizes that drunk driving is a serious problem. that is certainly not our position. secondly, the reason i think, that there is no evidence that in the states that prohibit warrantless blood draws in routine dwi cases like this, have lower conviction rates, is, number one, in most cases they can obtain consent. number two, in cases where

they can't obtain consent they have been able to obtain warrants in a timely fashion. and number three, even in the absence of warrants, all the facts that lead to probable cause often create a very compelling case for conviction in the absence of -- >> but my question was, what you don't want to do and you don't have to that if you think of a second best solution, it might always be better than what i think of as a second best solution. >> i've more confidence in your judgement. >> i want to know if you want to say anything that would suggest, we have a number of them floating around and i just wonder if you want to express any view on a second best solution? >> well, you know, our position and i'm not sure whether you're classifying this as our first position or something else, our position is that within the context of smever, special facts to the warrant requirement you have to apply the totality of the

circumstances test and you ought to apply a reasonableness test. absence any evidence that those intrinsic delays interfered with the ability of 25 states in the country to enforce their drunk driving laws, this court ought not to adopt a categorical exception to the warrant requirement. and the risk of doing it, as you pointed out, justice buyer, you create this odd disincentive, that is the states that have slowest and most cumbersome warrant procedures are the states that get a free pass and are able to override the fourth amendment. >> that is not true because there is a great advantage to the prosecution in having a search with a warrant as opposed to a warrantless search in terms of suppression. isn't that correct? >> well, there is some advantage to having it, certainly. a search conducted pursuant to a warrant is much less subject to suppression than a search that is subject not pursuant to a warrant but there is generally speaking, in these cases, probable cause that is derived from

the officer's observations on the scene and the defendant's performance in the field sobriety test that, that, you know, can support the search. >> can i ask you this question? how much blood has to be taken in order to test for blood-alcohol? what if medical, i gather it is substantial amount but what if it advances to the point you don't need anymore blood than you need now to test blood sugar and you have just a little machine that make as tiny in somebody's finger? is that enough blood to be able to do a blood-alcohol test? would it change then? >> excuse me. i don't think the fourth amendment rule turns on the amount of blood that you take out of somebody's body. i think the fourth, an important, maybe not the important dividing line, an important dividing line for fourth amendment purposes is puncturing the skin and the court recognized this in other circumstances. >> does that mean, the last

footnote in the solicitor general's brief talks about other methods including a urine sample. not as accurate as blood but can help achieve the same result. one of the things, that i think affects the view in this case is it is a pretty scary image of somebody restrained and representing the state approaching them with a needle but, i take it you would say you need a search warrant for a urine sample too? >> this court said that in a variety of circumstances in drug testing cases where they weren't even law enforcement cases. they were special needs >> what about the device you hold up in front of them. it measures to some extent blood-alcohol content at least or whether the individual's been drinking? i don't say you don't need a search warrant for that. >> i think that is, that is probably correct, your honor. you presumably do not need a search warrant for that and

this court held first in schmerber and reaffirmed in south dakota versus neville there is no fifth amendment issue requiring to sfurn niche evidence that can be used against you. we're not talking about self-in -- incrimination problem. we're talking about a search and seizure problem. but we are not there. we're not there. and, the warrant process, that, that missouri has described is, is, is not as complicated. there are many places now that, number one, permit not only telefonic warrants but electronic warrants where officers are equipped in their patrol cars with laptop computers. they can fill out these preprepared forms in a matter of minutes. e-mail them -- >> you're in an odd position to be making, understandable position, your argument is these warrants, they're just

easy as pie. you just send in this thing. the judge does it in an instant. doesn't take very long at all. seems to me that diminishes the protection of the fourth amendment to a far greater extent. the idea that the prosecuting to attorney is supposed to spend time looking at this before submitting to the judge and judge is supposed to spend time to examine it. the idea you do these things in half hour is unreasonable to me. >> i don't think it is unreasonable, your honor. the evidence in these cases are relatively standardized and procedures are relatively standardized. there doesn't mean there is not problem with the second and detached look by a independent magistrate. >> to go back, in this conversation we sort of have lost focus of, which was the question of presented, and, which is the essence i think of ire adversaries arguments. i'm not sure you really put

forth. the essence of their argument is that you can forgo the warrant requirement when you know for a fact that evidence is going to dissipate over time. basically they're saying, this process, undermines our right to get a warrant because the evidence is dissipating. we certainly have cases that talk about the destruction of evidence. being a reason to forego the warrant. what makes this case different from those? >> i would be happy to answer that question, justice sotomayor if i can complete my answer to the chief justice for one second. my answer would be even if there are boxes on a standardized form there is value to making sure that the prosecutor and the police have checked off all the right boxes before they engage in a process as intrusive as putting a needle in somebody's arm.

now in answer to justice sotomayor's question, i think there are multiple answers, your honor. first, this court has on two occasions considered and rejected the notion that the mere fact that alcohol dissipates over time is itself sufficient to proceed without a warrant. as justice ginsburg pointed out in schmerber, the court's discussion what the court itself called special facts would have been unnecessary if all the court needed to say was that this natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood automatically leads to -- >> mr. shapiro, schmerber is odd case. they spend a lot of time talking about special facts and you read the opinion back and forth and you can't find the special facts. >> i think the special facts, your honor, were the accident and injuries at the scene which delayed the police two hours before they could even get to the hospital to initiate the process to apply the warrant, there were no cell phones,

no faxes no internet and all warrant applications had to be presented in person. that is very different situation. >> police officers to the scene they could have done everything faster. if they had sent more police officers to the scene of the accident they could have done it faster. what is the different between that practical limitation and the limitation that exists in a recalled would, in a world jurisdiction? >> i think that practical limit takes, whether or not were other officers on the scene that could happen sent to the scene, we'll not asking for a rule which this court would direct police officers how to deploy their resource. if there are multiple police officers on the scene i don't think it is unreasonable one can tend to the accident and one can search for a warrant. and that pam p becomes the totality of the circumstance. schmerber is the not only case. in we welsh versus wisconsin, the court said mere dissipation of alcohol in the blood was? sufficient to justify a warrantless entry into a defendant's home in order to arrest the defendant on dwi charges.

explicit holding. not simply an inference one has to draw from schmerber. second thing i would say in response to your question, justice sotomayor, is biology. it is true that alcohol dissipates over time through natural body processes but that is only after the blood-alcohol level has reached its peak. and that is generally about half an hour after somebody has had its last drink. there is period of time time where the body is continuing to absorb alcohol and the blood-alcohol level guns continuing to rise. only at peak does it then start to dissipate. >> i'm sorry what is the relevance of that? >> the relevance of that is, it is not true in every, won't be true in every case, mr. chief justice, that the state is losing evidence with each passing moment. >> so depends upon the when the person left the restaurant right after they had a night cap and then left but if they just had some drinks before? i mean the problem seems to be there in either case. you don't know when the person's last drink was. >> you may or may not though,

depending upon what the person is willing to tell you. all i'm saying is, in every case, in every case it is not a situation from the moment you stop the driver his blood-alcohol level is going down. there will be some cases where it is going up. >> but a policeman has probable cause to believe that somebody inside the house has drugs. he hears the toilet flushing and he thinks they're flushing the drugs down the drain. >> right. >> he doesn't have to get a warrant as long as he reasonably believes that the evidence is disappearing. now the difference between your case here and that is specifically what the? suppose we were just to refer to those cases and say it's the same thing? >> because the process is very different process. in the typical drug case which is what this court has considered, when it has, examined the question whether destruction of evidence qualifies as an exigent circumstance, that question is almost always arisen what i will call a typical drug case, richards versus wisconsin, kentucky versus king and in those

situations where the court is worried about is the suspect up side the house is going to flush the drugs down the toilet and -- >> is this now or never? >> it is now or never. >> very slows process. >> now or never. but not only is it now or never, but in most of those cases not all, in most of the cases the state's case will disappear down the drain along with the drugs and ability to destroy the drugs lies entirely within the control of the defendant. defendant gets to decide whether he will put the drugs down the toilet or not. when he does the destruction is immediate and total. in this situation the process is gradual. it takes hours. it can take hours, depending upon how much alcohol is in the system and it is outside the control of the suspect. there is nothing that the suspect can do to expedite the process of the destruction of that evidence. >> well, we know that defense attorneys love it when there's a delay because the retrograde analysis has more and more contingencies that make it unreliable.

>> that may -- >> you would much rather examine the state's expert, if, the sample was taken three hours than if it was after the arrest than one. i mean that's a given . . >> violation of the integrity of your home is somewhat less than the violation of the integrity of your body. >> well, i think that is certainly true, that is certainly true as well -- >> that goes into the reasonableness interpretation. >> right. >> and there is no doubt, i will not deny the state's case will

be easier if it does not have to obtain warrant. but this court has recognized that many times in the past. criminal investigations are always easier if the state does not have to comply with the warrant process. >> before your time runs out, the case of the fingernail scraping has been raised. well, that's somebody going to scrape your finger nails, that's as intrusive as a blood test. >> well, i would say three things, your honor. i don't think it is as intrusive, and though in -- [inaudible] v. murphy, the court described it as a brief but serious intrusion, the court recognized even the fingernail scrape was a serious fourth amendment issue. secondly, that evidence unlike the blood alcohol evidence was under the control of the defendant and in that case on the facts of that case much like many of the court's other exigent circumstances cases, there was evidence to suggest that the defendant was actively engaged in the process of degrading the evidence at the time that the police stepped in and said we're going to preserve

what is left rather than allow you to be the agent of your own destruction. and as the court said in kentucky v. king, it is a very different situation when you have the defendant himself destroying evidence under those circumstances. it may be reasonable for the course to say you can't simultaneously destroy evidence and then protest the destruction of evidence has created the exigency that requires the state to act without a warrant. but there is no agency in this case on behalf of the defendant. the defendant has no capacity. and i come back to what i said before. it is true, i think this question came up earlier, um, when mr. koester was being questioned. fourth amendment standards are not determined by state law. the court has said that in virginia v. moore, we all understand that. but in the determination of what is reasonable under the fourth amendment, this court has often looked to state practices in response to justice kennedy's question. in tennessee v. garner you have half the states that have abrogated the rule.

in richards v. wisconsin, you have half the states that did not sport an exception the -- support an exception to the no knock rule. here we have half the states in the country that would not have permitted what went on in this case. thank you very much. >> thank you, counsel. mr. koester, we'll give you three minutes. >> thank you. everyone agrees that the closer a chemical test is taken to the time of driving, the more reliable the evidence of intoxication is, the more reliable the evidence of impairment is. so under the respondent's approach, it would be mandated that we're going to allow the most reliable evidence to dissipate and degrade over a period of time in favor of admittedly less reliable ed taken at a later -- evidence taken at a later time. and that's simply inconsistent with fourth amendment jurisprudence and other destruction of evidence cases. i believe the respondent's proposed rule here is completely impractical be unworkable -- and

unworkable. if there are no further questions, i -- >> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. >> coming up in about 30 minutes here on c-span2, a discussion on job creation, innovation and improving government performance. a panel will examine strategies and best practices to spur economic growth and what role the private sector plays. it's live from brookings institution, 1:30 eastern. over the past couple of days, johns hopkins university in baltimore has been hosting a summit on reducing gun violence. speakers have included new york city mayor michael bloomberg and maryland governor martin o'malley. this afternoon at 4 eastern they'll hold a news conference to release their recommendations. we'll have that live as well here on c-span2. the house of representatives is working today, they're working on a bill on hurricane sapty relief. they're -- sandy relief. they're just underway. we spoke to a capitol hill

reporter earlier today to find out more about where the bill stands. >> host: first, eric lawson is a staff writer for the hill newspaper here in washington. joining us on the phone. just walk us through the agenda for the house. the senate is not in, but the house is back. why? what are they doing? >> guest: well, first off, they're going to do a reading of the constitution. that's something that was new when republicans took over the house in 2011. it was part of their pledge to america, and they're doing that. but in the afternoon and evening, we'll move into a debate of votes on the hurricane sandy relief package. all told it's about a $50 billion package to help pay for the damage from hurricane sandy. and after a dramatic rules committee meeting yesterday, 12 out of 92 amendments were ruled in order. so there will be some amendment debate. but generally, what would be the killer amendments to it, things

that would have largely, you know, eliminated most of the funding in the bill or offset it were not ruled in order. this was after northeast lawmakers like peter king again, basically, got very angry of the possibility of killer amendments being offered. the back story, this is right before the last congress ended january 2nd, speaker boehner promised peter king and other northeast lawmakers that he he would move the bill quickly of after pulling it from the floor at the last minute in the wake of the fiscal cliff vote that saw most republicans vote against the speaker right around new year's day. >> host: so, eric wasson, do they have the votes then for this next round of relief? >> guest: well, the proponents of the bill say they're confident. of course, we'd expect them to say that. but i think most likely they do. they have at least 14 republican lawmakers from the northeast, they probably have all the democrats. they just need to get, you know,

some others, and i think most of the appropriations committee, you know, hal rogers is behind this bill, he crafted it. so there's no earmarks and there's no pork. so i think so. i think some of the minor amendments, stripping the couple million dollars stripped out for weather service and other people view as not sandy-related may pass, but i don't think they're viewed as killer amendments in the senate. the key amendment to look will be one from representative mick mulvaney of south carolina, a large -- big deficit hawk. the republican senate committee budget guru, and he is offsetting most of the first slice. the bill's actually two pieces, 17 billion and 34 billion. and he's offsetting the 17 billion portion with a across-the-board cut. so it'll be interesting to see if that passes or not. you know, all democrats will vote against it, and i suspect that it will fail. but it'll be interesting to see.

for him it's important because they want to establish the principle that emergency spending needs to be offset with spending cuts. which is something that democrats are very afraid of, because they feel like every time there's a disaster, republicans use it as an excuse to go after domestic programs, social services and so forth. so that'll be an important precedent, and then we'll see what happens in the senate. you know, we'll probably see a house/senate conference on the bill or some ping-ponging between the chambers and probably delaying final enactment. >> host: yeah. and the washington times reporting this morning that the conservative group for growth is threatening to punish members who vote for this legislation. >> guest: oh, sure. both pieces, the 17 billion and 34 billion, heritage action is also talking about key voting it. that's their annual scorecards which, you know, when people run in these primaries, they like to highlight that they have 100% rating or high rating. but these conservative groups

and, you know, if they vote for it, they'll get docked, and their number will go down. so that's, you know, you'd expect them to do that. and also citizens against government waste is against it. there's a group of, you know, a small coalition of conservative groups that are against these bills. >> host: and, of course, our cameras will be covering the house floor when this debate is taken up and when those votes take place, so keep your channel on c-span if you're interested in watching that. cc wasson, let's move on to what happened yesterday in the president's last official news conference of his first term, this debt ceiling debate. "wall street journal" headline this morning is that he's escalated the fight. how will republicans respond in they leave washington later this week for a retreat. what's on the agenda? >> guest: right. yeah, they're going down to williamsburg, virginia, for at the end of the week into the weekend, and what's on the agenda is devising some sort of house bill that would raise the debt ceiling and pair it with

entitlement or other spending cuts. you know, there's differing theories about how long, you know, one or two years which is what the president talked about. we've heard a couple of months, we've heard four years. you know, but there's sort of a principle that they're using which is equal amount of deficit reduction for the amount the debt ceiling is raised. so if you're going to raise it by, you know, $3 or $4 trillion, we're talking about sort of massive reforms probably along the lines of the paul ryan budget which cut $5 trillion in spending. you'd see things like block granting of medicaid and food stamps and, you know, i don't think that they would put in what's called a voucher system or premium support system for medicare. that was, you know, pretty much trounced during the election. but we'll see. you need something with big numbers in order to -- [inaudible] more or less it's probably a

smaller debt ceiling increase. and they also need to decide what to do about two other fiscal cliffs that are looming, the $85 billion in sequester cuts that had been put off for two months for the fiscal cliff deal and also the continuing resolution, government funding runs out march 27th. and if a bill's not passed, the government will shut down. now, some thought that republicans would be more willing to use that weapon to try to force cuts because a government shutdown is several orders of latitude less serious than a debt ceiling default. but, you know, behind the scenes appropriators have been working out their differences, and they could act quickly if leadership decided they didn't want to use that weapon to sort of pass the bill. >> l and finally, eric wasson, you report that the white house has sold paul ryan, the house budget chairman, that its budget will be late, missing the deadline. why? >> guest: that's right. already we're supposed to be starting the 2014 spending

cycle, and the beginning of that is the submission of the president's budget which by law needs to appear on the first monday in february. and it's not going to do that. the acting budget director told paul ryan on friday in a letter that we spoke to a request from him that he will not make the deadline. there's no date given. there's rumors the thing could come in march or later which would give republicans a lot of fodder to sort of say the president's fiscally irresponsible. but the reason that's been given is the fiscal cliff deal delayed a lot of preparations. you know, the budget cycle takes months and months of agency planning and back and forth between the office of management and budget and the agencies. so that's the official reason. there's perhaps, also, a strategic reason, submitting that in the middle of the debt ceiling fight could throw a wildcard into the negotiations. so we'll have to see, but definitely not coming by

february 4th when it's due. >> host: all right. erik wasson, thank you for laying out all the budget battles to come. thank you. >> guest: thank you. >> and the u.s. house is in session right now debating the rules for the hurricane sandy aid bill. votes starting shortly. live coverage of that on our companion network, c-span. also a short time ago white house spokesman jay carney revealed that president obama will unveil his gun violence proposals at 11:45 tomorrow morning at the white house. we'll have coverage of that on the c-span networkings. again, that will be tomorrow. and a quick reminder that coming up in about 20 minutes we'll go back to the brookings institution for more from a conference on job creation, innovation and improving government performance. that'll be live at 1:30 eastern here on c-span2. right now, though, house democratic leaders this morning called on republicans to reject amendments that would decrease funding for superstorm sandy relief. that aid package is being debated right now in the house.

this briefing also includes remarks on gun control by democratic freshman elizabeth este whose district includes newtown connecticut. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everyone. are we ready? javier becerra, chairman of the democratic caucus, i'm joined by joe crowley, and we're forchute to have with us the ranking member on the appropriations committee nina lowy, and with us as well is elizabeth este who is a representative from connecticut and is the representative for the areas that were impacted by the newtown tragedy. we just finished a robust 9 a.m. caucus meeting. great participation from members. they are ready to go. we know there are some unfinished business from the

previous session. we though that we must deal with the issues confronting our country in terms of school safety, gun violence. we understand that we must continue to create jobs for americans, and we know that we have to do this together working with our republican colleagues. and so we are ready. and the first sign will come today when we take on extremely important legislation dealing with the aftermath of superstorm sandy. and democrats are ready. we are in the minority in the house of representatives, but we are ready to deliver the support that those affected victims and families expect of their government. we are ready to help our fellow americans get back to work, and we think this is an appropriate way to signal to the american public that we can work together. and so we're hoping that not only this legislation on superstorm sandy, but we hope quick progress on dealing with

gun violence in a bipartisan fashion shows the american people that congress learned from the lessons of last session's dysfunctional house of representatives, that we can get things done, we can walk and chew gum at the same time and that the election in november 2012 meant something. that it had consequences, and we understand that it is up to the newly-elected members of congress in the house and the senate to get their work done. and so we're very much looking forward to taking to the floor today to support the resources that are needed by the families who for more than two months have withstood the tragedy and the pain and are waiting to hear from their fellow americans -- especially those who are elected to represent them in congress -- on being there with them to work alongside the rest of america. so with that, let me ask our vice chairman, joe crowley, to make some remarks. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

congressman joe crowley from queens and bronx, new york, vice chairman of the democratic caucus. i'm very pleased to be here today, particularly this being our first caucus of really the 113th congress and congratulate javier on his chairmanship. but also an opportunity to welcome in many respects getting people ready to go to work, our freshmen class, all 49 were there bright and early, and we really appreciate that, and particularly to have elizabeth este with us here today. representing that freshman class. we had a very informative caucus meeting this morning, particularly as it pertains to the issue of sandy. superstorm sandy. and i know the next person i'm going to introduce will give you more details about where we stand. but let me just say as javier has mentioned, the people of new york, new jersey, connecticut and pennsylvania have waited two and a half months too long. and the effect of that wait is

manyfold. it will take longer for the region to get back up on its feet, it will take longer for small businesses to open and operate again. but maybe most importantly, it will be longer for people to put their lives back together. and i'm talking both from physical damage, but certainly to mental anguish as well, some which i think we have yet to see the effects of. but we are acting today. it appears as though we will act today. it's my hope that we will act today. and i think in many respects we're led by the democratic caucus in insuring that the legislation pass today as well. democrats understand the needs of people, especially people who are victims of natural disaster, and the congress will stand today to do what we ought to have done at least two months ago, and that is to respond to the victims of this horrible superstorm sandy.

with that, i'd like to introduce the ranking member of the house appropriations committee as well whose district was affected by superstorm sandy, my good friend, nina lowy. >> thank you, joe crowley. thank you, javier becerra. we're off to a great start with an extraordinary freshman class, and i'm so pleased that at our first meeting the point that was emphasized and there was so much support in the democratic caucus is that we're an american. and americans respond no matter where the tragedy is. and for those of us who live in new york, new jersey, and connecticut, we visited the sites. businesses totally flooded out. i was amazed when we actually look at the numbers, 8.1 million people without power. some for weeks, some for months.

so the fact that we're bringing this to the floor today 79 days after the disaster, remember, it was ten days that we responded to katrina. this is 79 days. but i'm so pleased that those people who have lost their homes, lost their livelihood and 650,000 homes were totally destroyed. so although many of our businesses are back on their feet, many of the homeowners have gotten help. and i'm very proud of the federal government and state and local governments that we've been able to work together. there are many who are anxiously waiting for this support. now, number one, there's no excuse that the house did not pass the senate bill. they could have passed the senate bill. there was no reason they didn't pass the senate bill. but i'm very pleased that the

first order of business in the 113th congress is coming up today so people in our communities can finally see relief. now, the package is not all perfect. it doesn't meet the $82 billion that was originally asked for by the states. it doesn't fully fund the community development block grant monies. the bill does not include what we think was superior senate language on the flexibility and cost share of the omni core projects, and it doesn't sufficiently assist many of the health facilities that lost tens of millions of dollars due to the storm. however, despite this we are very enthusiastic that this bill is coming. we must support the freehling house amendment, we must support

the rogers amendment, and we must oppose the mulvaney amendment which is an across-the-board cut to offset the costs of disaster relief. i want to repeat this point again. in the united states of america, we respond to disasters. all americans respond to disasters. we don't ask for offsets. we make sure that the communities are getting the resource they need so that they can help their business, help the homeowners replace the terrible disasters that we've seen in new york. there are people that couldn't go to work for days because of all the tunnels that were flooded. there were 146 major disaster declarations in the last two years. 146 major disaster declarations in the last two years. so there isn't a disaster that isn't responded to by the united

states of america to help people deal with their catastrophes in their area. so again, the bill was written so that when one region is devastated, we all respond. it's imperative that we pass in this package today. and now it is my real pleasure to introduce elizabeth este. we're so happy to have her. she is representing this amazing freshman class, and she's also the congresswoman who represents those families in the newtown. we all share the heart ache that i know you all experienced, and we are pleased that you're here today, and we expect that we're going to do something about it. thank you, elizabeth. >> good morning, and thank you

to chairman becerra, thank you to vice chairman crowley and thank you to my good friend, nina lowy, for that kind introduction. i represent connecticut's 5th district. and i also represent in that the community of newtown, connecticut. and i'm serving as one of 12 vice chairs of the congressional gun violence prevention task force. our vice chairs have a wide range of experience that they're bringing to bear on these important problems, and they reflect the diversity of our wonderful house caucus. we are focused on a comprehensive approach that will deal with true gun safety regulations and protect the rights of responsible gun owners but also deal with mental health issues and, most importantly, keeping our children and our communities safe. we want to bring unique ideas to the table to work to save lives and keep families safe.

yesterday we had a very productive meeting with vice president biden along with various members of the cabinet including attorney general eric holder, homeland security secretary napolitano and hhs secretary sebelius. it was a really productive conversation, and i was encouraged as i think the other members of the task force were encouraged by their commitment to reduce, reduce gun violence in this country and to help our communities. over the next several weeks, we will be working very hard with a series of hearings and meetings to generate the sorts of solutions that the country deserves to have at this critical time. to meet with different constituencies to get all the best ideas on the table, and to present them, again, to keep our communities safe. with a comprehensive set of policy proposals. and i appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning. i want to say to all americans

the community of newtown appreciates your thoughts and prayers. they are going through a very difficult time. our first responders, the teachers, the students, but it's a resilient community just as this is a great and resilient country as we are seeing with superstorm sandy. americans step up to the plate, we get the job done. and i appreciate the opportunity to serve. thank you very much. >> elizabeth, thank you very much for your service, and we're very much looking forward to your representation as a new member from connecticut and what you bring to the table here in washington d.c. i just want to add one last point. all those families that are waiting for this relief have been pulling their own weight for quite some time. they've had the help or of a bipartisan group of governors. certainly, we've all seen and heard governor christie of new jersey, governor cuomo of new york, but it's been a bipartisan effort at those local levels. and we here in the house of representatives, part of the

democratic caucus, are ready to pull our weight and provide the support necessary to pass this legislation. we hope our colleagues on the republican side of the aisle are ready to pull their weight and provide the support necessary to pass this essential legislation which is more than two months in the waiting, to provide the relief as a result of superstorm sandy. so with that we'll take any questions. >> congressman, congresswoman lowey, how confident are you that you have the votes for the $50 billion package, and how confident are you that you can turn back the mulvaney amendment which i know you mentioned is important? >> let me say i feel very confident that we will have almost every vote of the senate caucus. this has been a bipartisan effort. we've been speaking to governor cuomo as recently as last night, governor christie, and i know the republicans led by peter king, mike king, michael grimm and the other republican b members from new york, new jersey and connecticut and

pennsylvania who feel passionately about this. this is not a democratic issue, this is not a republican issue. and i just hope, as javier said, that they pull their weight and they have enough votes to join with the democrats to pass this bill. you know, the people -- the 8.1 million people, the beaches that were destroyed, the businesses that on the beaches in new jersey, for example, and new york that are trying to get ready for the summer, this is billions of dollars. the hospitals that were destroyed. you don't get republican pain when a hospital is destroyed. you don't get republican or democrat pain when you see people who lost their -- 101 people lost their lives, by the way. so i'm counting on my republicans with encouragement from the governors to get sufficient votes to join with the democrats and pass this bill. >> [inaudible] >> certainly. >> we understand that an assault

weapons ban is part of the recommendations that the vice president is considering, and, um, senator reid has suggested that he's not confident that could pass the senate. even the president yesterday said he doesn't think he can get everything he wanted. isn't the political reality of this issue that an assault weapons ban is politically almost impossible to get through congress? >> i have to tell you, having just arrived here, i am part of a group of freshmen who believe we need to not accept the answers of the past, and we need to do better. this is wake-up call. newtown, connecticut, is a wake-up call to elected officials to do better for this country. and i believe that there is will out there to take on comprehensive reform. and i will be part of that process whether we get the votes in the end, i can't say that. i'm not a good predicter at this point. but i do know this, we need to take on effective, responsible efforts. and i will be supporting an assault weapons ban. and we certainly will be pursuing vigorously high

capacity magazines which were used in this and virtually every mass killing in this country. we need to do better as a country. >> [inaudible] there's a chance it won't ever come up for a vote in the house. >> well, again, it's my job to advocate strongly for my community and for all these communities. that's what i'll be doing, and working with leadership to get the votes we need. and the american public. i believe the american public is going to make their voices heard to all of their representatives. and i trust them. >> i'm so glad that congresswoman esty mentioned the american public. i don't want to give preference to one of your cameras here today, but i wake up to the news every morning. and in the latest polls are very, very shocking, and i am thrilled. the american public has had it. whether it was new towbtown -- newtown or aurora or gabby

giffords in arizona, but you look at those polls, background checks, high capacity magazines, every single item on this poll was supported by a majority or a greater majority of americans. so i would hope that the senate and the house wake up and understand that the american people are fed up, that they absolutely support the assault weapons ban b and all the other provisions that the task force has worked, has been working on. >> take one last question. [inaudible] we thank you very much. >> the government performance. we are webcasting this panel live, and we also have a c-span broadcast -- >> live now to the brookings constitution for more from a conference on job creation, innovation and improving government performance. this is just getting underway.

>> those of you who are here this morning for the panels heard a lot of complaints about government. in fact, one speaker even raised the issue of horse manure, which i thought was an advertisement for our panel on improving government performance. but, obviously, there have been great criticisms about the inefficiency and the costliness of the public sector. many feel that government gets in the way of economic development. nearly everyone agrees that we need to think differently about the role of government and the political process. our center for technology innovation this morning put out a paper entitled "smart policy: building an innovation-based economy." we propose a number of different ways in which we could use technology to improve education, health care and government performance. so if you didn't get a copy when you came in, there are copies out in the hallway outside the auditorium. in this particular session,

we're going to discuss how our political leaderrers can better -- leaders can better address the problems that we face. in particular we're going to look at ways that we can get congress, the white house and federal agencies to perform at a higher level. what are the new ideas to change the manner in which government functions? are there responsibilities that can be foreverred to other levels of -- transferred to other levels of government, the private sector or nongovernmental organizations? to help us understand the benefits and barriers to government performance, we have brought together an outstanding set of speakers. to my immediate right is phil knight who's the chairman and cofounder of nike incorp.ed. -- incorporated. in 1964 phil and his former university of oregon track coach, bill bowerman, founded what was then called blue ribbon sports which was later named nike after the greek winged goddess of victory. and i like the optimism of that

name. great choice there. the first line of nike debuted in 1972, but there are two things that you might not know about phil. before blue ribbon sports, phil was a certified public accountant. is that really true? >> true. >> with pricewaterhousecooperss. i think most people didn't know that. and even more shocking, i didn't know this, he was also an assistant professor of business administration at portland state university. that is amazing. robert taubman is chairman, president and ceo of taubman centers incorporated. he has headed taubman centers since the company's initial public offering in 1992. he serves as a member of the board of directors of comerica incorporated and sotheby's holdings. he also has served as a direct or of the real estate round table in washington, d.c. and serves on the board of the beaumont hospital in detroit and

some other nonprofit organizations. elaine kamarck is a senior fellow and director of our management and leadership initiative program here at brookings. previously, she taught at the harvard kennedy school in the 1980s. elaine was a principal founder of the new democratic movement that helped elect president clinton. from 1993 to 1997, she served in the white house where she oversaw the national performance review also known as reinventing government. so we're coming up on the 20-year an verse or ri of that. her research includes management, 21st century government, government reform and innovation. and she is the author of "the end of of government as we know it: implementation of the 21st century." and also a book on primary politics and the election process. so, phil, i want to start with you. you have tremendous experience in the private sector. what do you see as the government impediments that keep businesses from growing faster and creating jobs?

>> oh, how long have we got? [laughter] >> plenty of time. as long as you need. >> well, first of all, nike was not only the greek goddess of victory, it's a missail that -- missile that goes really fast. [laughter] the bad news about me coming to a brookings meeting for me is that it's a five-hour airplane flight. the good news is that it's a five-hour airplane flight, that i get to sit at 40,000 feet and think. and thinking on the way over here, i said government performance -- elaine and darrell are really expert in that, and i am not. i've never spent any time in government which is good for me and for government. [laughter] and really am not expert in that. but the word "performance" is sort of where we live. we make products that if they have any reason for being, allow people to perform better. and that's been part of our dna and culture from the very

beginning. our mission statement is to provide products that inspire -- provide innovation and inspiration for every athlete in the world. and if you have a body, you're an athlete. so performance is very important to us. and that we've been number one in our industry for about a quarter of a century. through generations of managers and managements. and the key thing, i think, during that period is culture. and the older i get the more important culture is to me and to the company's performance and to other companies' performances. and i would say that the culture if government today is very un-- in government today is very unhealthy. and culture is made up of lots of different parts, lots of different people, lots of different actions. so i would certainly say that both sides of the aisle

contribute to this unhealthy culture. and there's lots of things that have gotten in the way or have provided handicaps for nike doing business in the world. the dodd-frank has a his with l blower provision -- whistleblower provision. it took two years for our person in charge of interpreting that who is a graduate of harvard business school to explain to us what it meant. and he finally said that even though we were quite proud of the implementation of whistleblower things for our own company -- we have a code of conduct, we have a handbook, we have for every new employee we have a class on the subject, and we've never had a whistleblowerrer incident. in spite of all that with the dodd-frank implementation, we would have to add $3 million in expenses to make sure we had standing in court if there was ever a whistleblower incident. so that's $3 million that we took out that we could have invested in people, could have

invested in jobs, could have invested in research, could have done a lot of different things with. so that's one. the second one is there's another provision which we didn't find out about until november, if i can get this one right. the conflict minerals reporting requirement. conflict minerals apply to gold, tungsten made in the democratic republic of congo. what the hell does that have to do with shoes and clothes? well, we have a fuel band that has metal in it that applies, and we have our golf driver that has metal in it that applies. so we have to report every year to make sure ha those metal pieces -- to make sure that those metal pieces did not come from condo. so how in the hell do we figure that out? because it goes from a wholesaler to an exporter to an importer to an agent to a distributer. there's probably eight or nine layers between those small

amounts that we have to do. but we have to take a couple of valuable employees a couple of months a year to trace down where these metals come from. there's -- going clear back to sarbanes-oxley, requiring the ceo to spend 16 straight hours reviewing financial procedures in his company. any ceo worth his salt already knows that without spending those 16 hours. and then what bob mcdonald talked about and said it much better than i will, in fact, maybe if you had it on tape, we'd show it. but tax policy and trade policy. obviously, as the recession hits the world, why, trade policy gets more difficult. and we have troubles getting products into two of our most fast-growing markets, in argentina and brazil, which we could use some government help on keeping those markets open. and, of course, the big one is tax policy. we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. so that mark barker who is now

the ceo of the company and for a young whippersnapper of 55, he's doing a great job, but that he sits every year when he sets the budget, and he has to decide where the last dollar of investment goes. and where it generates the last dollar of profit. so he could get a dollar of profit in the united states for which 60 cents goes out to the shareholder, to the ultimate shareholder. or he can get another dollar, he can get that dollar profit in timbuktu of which 75 cents comes to the average shareholder. so any global company can maneuver around it, procter & gamble does that, i'm sure, better than anybody. and we'll be just fine with that. but the american economy suffers from that kind of situation. so those are some of the handicaps and some of the things that contribute to the culture that, i think, is not receptive right now to innovation and those sorts of things, and i'm sure i'll get to talk about that later and turn it on over to you. >> okay. bobby, you have developed shopping mauls across the

country including the city creek center in salt lake city. what has been your experience with government? >> complicated. phil talks about the culture of government really is, i mean, if it's not broken, it's certainly misguided. you know, for a company to be successful, you absolutely have to have a strong culture. and i think we've sort of argued at times what the purpose of government is. and it's really trying to sort of understand what that purpose is that the constituents are always pulling themselves apart at. because the agenda moves so much as you talk through a process. i mean, you mentioned dodd-frank. you mentioned sarbanes-oxley. or sarbanes-oxley which is, you know, does take maybe that 16 hours and everything else, at least it was about 100 pages, and people understood what its purposes was. it was after some terrible abuses that occurred in the economy, and it got done. and it was implemented over a period of a relatively short period of time.

you look at dodd-frank, dodd-frank's 2,000 pagings. nobody -- you ask anybody, you know, that have read this thing up and down, they don't understand what it is, and there's so many interpretations that still have to happen that you don't -- government doesn't have a clue how to regulate it. and eventually, you know, you've got seven, eight thousand banks out there. and everybody says it's good, there's going to be consolidation, but that may not be good. at the end of the day, the small community banks will get consolidated because they can't afford dodd-frank if they can actually understand it. those are the people that are lending to small businesses in rural communities and small communities. and it'll largely go away because the larger consolidated banks will have less interest. so you have to be careful what you wrought when you start down that path. it all comes down to, really, what is the purpose? we're in the shopping center world, and as darrell said, we just opened a shopping center in downtown salt lake city, utah.

it's the first large shopping center of our kind that we've built with store anchors and the like opened since 2006. this project's creating several thousand jobs, it's created a huge investment. it's just the retail portion several thousand. but the full project which is, you know, $2.5-$3 billion has created, you know, tens of thousands of jobs both construction and permanent jobs in an urban core. so, i mean, it's fantastic. but the entitlement process that we had to go through and, obviously, entitlement processes are necessary in many ways to make sure that things are done in an appropriation way, you know, in a safe way, in a way that helps the environment, in a way that helps the economy and the local community and all of the above. but we've been an entitlement -- in entitlement processes around the country that have taken over 20 years. so if you think about projects -- and we're in one right now that i won't name exactly where it is, but it's

been over 20 years. we have a project down in tampa, florida, that took us 21 years to open. so it's now the most successful shopping center in that region. it's created at least 3-4,000 permanent jobs. a huge spin-off and a huge catalyst for all kinds of growth. but why should it take us 21 years to do something that's really good? and i think that's the problem. you know, regulation is necessary, but regulation has to have its place. there has to be a balance. and, you know, sort of determining the size of government, a lot of people have said, it should be the people's will, but it doesn't feel that way. and bigger is not always better. and, you know, the idea of a faster and smarter government, you know, i said earlier is really sort of like an oxymoron. it doesn't feel that way. and it almost feels like we should outsource certain pieces of the government. i mean, canada is an example. they've, you know, approved

budgets, they've actually met the budget, they've actually balanced their budget, they actually have an immigration policy. there's certain things they've done. maybe we should outsource certain of our take back the democracy for ten years, just outsource it for a period of time. [laughter] we can't set a budget. if you had a business, you'd go out of business if you can't set a budget every year. i mean, it's ridiculous. but we can't do it. and we've all talked about polarization, but, you know, from the my view the performance of government is not high. and that's disappointing because, you know, i do think we have the greatest country in the world, and i think the earlier panel, you know, talked about the balance sheet being broken, management noting with good. and i think -- not being good. and i think that's really something to keep in our minds. >> okay. elaine, you sought to reinvent government in the 1990s through the clinton administration. twenty years later how do you see the issue of government performance? >> well, i think that in the 1990s there were things that we instituted that are now

standard or operating procedure in government. so the use of performance metrics is standard throughout the government. it is a move in the direction of trying to measure performance. i think it's had great effect within the executive branch. i think congress has steadfastly ignored this entire phenomenon because today like what they like, and they don't like what they don't like, and they don't want to get confused by performance metrics. so i think there's been a sort of limited impact of the government performance and results act which has established performance metrics throughout the government. information technology has made the most impact. you know, in the '90s the irs had when in clinton's first term the irs had spent $4 billion on failed information technology programs. part of the federal government's problem with information

technology had to do with the fact that it had legacy systems. if it wasn't for the u.s. department of defense and the social security administration, we wouldn't have the internet. that's where it came from. so there was, there was sort of an unusual situation there unique to any place in the world. and i think, actually, between the bush administration and especially the obama administration there's actually been great leaps forward in terms of transactional use of the internet. people file their taxes online. this goes off year after year with relatively to problems. you know -- no problems. you know, this has actually been, those two things have been good advantages. i think the major failing over the last 20 years, and it really goes even back beyond that, is that because we were in a sort of anti-government mode for much of that time and we had at least until the last election a very

ascendant conservative feeling in the country, we started to do government not through government. and i think what my two colleagues here are reflecting is that we began to implement policy through regulation and through the tax system. as opposed to taking on policy head on. so your example, phil, about the congo, okay? look, clearly that place is a mess. clearly -- >> uh-huh. no argument. [laughter] >> every good intention people in the congress wanted to make a stance. but doing it that way? as opposed through a more direct, straight-on, diplomatic endeavor? okay, so we see this all over the place in the area of regulation and in the area of of tax expenditures. a government that has been for 20-30 years now making policy

through programs, through directions that are not intended to do that. the net result is we have a tax code where corporate taxes are way too high. we're not competitive. we have a tax code that creates a whole bunch of incentives and disincentives or for corporations that are not related to growth, okay, that are related to lowering the tax bill. again, because we were doing government through the tax system as opposed to doing government. we have a regulatory system that seeks to do policy through regulations on companies. it's kind of crazy, okay? that's not what, how these things work the best. finally, let me say something about culture, because i think your culture point is well taken. and to understand the culture of much of at least the regulatory part of the government, i want to talk about a female pharmacologist, 1957, named

francis oldham kelsey. probably nobody here knows who she is. well, she was the scientist, the pharmacologist at the food and drug administration who refused to, um, approve thalidomide for sail in the united states to pregnant -- for sale in the united states to pregnant women. now, at this point it was used all through the world, um, and there were tests in the u.s., so there were thalidomide babies here in the u.s. ever since then -- president kennedy gave her an award for her steadfastness on this, and every year the fda gives out the kelsey award. so the culture of the regulatory part of the government particularly at places like fda or really at the fcc, any place, is to not be the one that approves that lid mid --

thalidomide. and that culture is so strong in many of these agencies that it ends up creating a kind of morass that is not necessarily helpful to government and not necessarily helpful to business. but i do think it's important for business to understand that cultural prerogative, that cultural dimension to the regulatory side of the government. because that, again, exerts a very powerful influence on behavior. with that said, there's lots of other things to talk about in terms of government performance, but i thought that since my colleagues brought up the regulatory side, i would start with the regulatory side, and then we can move into other issues. >> but what happens is that you take that example, you take policy ends up, as you said, being created through regulation because it gets slipped in the back door, and then these agencies take over that have these cultures of not doing wrong -- >> yep. >> -- and it sort of chews up

the policy. >> absolutely. >> and it creates, in essence, something that ends up, you know, with the metal example that he has in the congo. >> yes, absolutely. >> and it creates a problem that we don't have the culture of innovation in the public sector that we generally see in the private sector. so, phil, i want to come back to you. you've thought a lot about management and ways to improve private sector performance. what do you think government can do to manage itself better? >> well, as i said, that ain't my area of expertise. but i, i'm a proud trustee at the brookings, at least until this panel is over -- [laughter] and i have a great faith that they can come up with things to help improve government including in the next hyundais. my -- hundred days. my question goes like this, really, which it's in some ways a question that has to be answered first. and i'm reminded -- almost haunted in the last two hours of

that airplane flight, so you may not want to have a panel on the west coast afterwards -- but 15 years ago when mark hatfield retired, i asked him to go to lunch. mark hatfield was a republican senator, served for 30 years, and before that he was eight years governor of the state of oregon. he was a revered figure in the state of oregon, and he worked brilliantly across the aisle between parties. so much so that his nickname was st. mark. and that i went to lunch with him and said that i had come into a position that i thought i could help the state that i loved. what would he, how would he recommend that i go about that? and the first thing he said was something that i not do. he said don't bother working with the government of the city of portland. he says it is so dysfunctional, it's just a complete waste of time. now, there's a certain irony, obviously, that now 15 years later bruce katz is trying to make portland, oregon, an

innovation hub. and i will say this, if he succeeds, a better trick than turning water into wine. [laughter] we may have to refer to bruce katz as jesus katz. [laughter] but he may be able to do that. but i would submit that mark hatfield was certainly right for 15 years. and that's my concern for the environment that we have. and, again, i think it crosses both sides of the aisle. the environment we have now, brookings can come up with some really good solutions. i have confidence in that. i don't have confidence that they'll be received in a way that makes them effective. >> okay. bobby, your ideas on improving government performance. like, if we made you czar for a week, what changes would you make? >> well, first, i'd like to private industry because i really do think the performance-based cultures that we talked about are critical. and there's just so much inefficiency in government.

i do think there's examples at the state level, and i'll go to my state in michigan and mention a few. things that can be done. grand rapids, there which is a n the west side of michigan in southeastern michigan, had created a virtual city. even though we're on opposite sides of the state, they actually collaborate on services like health care pooling, and grand rapids has also done the same thing with flint and lansing to try to combine income tax processing and pavement systems. -- payment systems. it was a private initiative that suggested this get done, and it finally got done. if you think about michigan, michigan's about ten million people today. if you think about the city of manhattan, it's a little over eight million people. manhattan has one fire department, one police department, one city -- one school district, it has one of

everything, basically, that leads eight million people. we have ten million people, we have 550 public districts. we have, you know, 83 different counties. we believe in michigan we could save at least $600 million a year just in combining those into one police department, one fire department. think about that in 50 states. think about how much inefficiency there is throughout the country. so creating a virtual city, creating, you know, a lot more efficiency at the state government, i think, would be tremendously important. we have something in kalamazoo, michigan, again, a public/private partnership that really was created by private industry, a few donors there that had an idea that wanted to keep people in kalamazoo which is a relatively small town. there's a state university there call canned western michigan university -- called western michigan university. and they wanted to encourage people not only to go to, to stay in high school, but to

actually go to college and actually find better employment nearby and go to local schools, go to local colleges. so they had lots of sort of virtual chain in the thought. so in 2005 these private donors put up the money. it's called the kalamazoo promise. and today guaranteed that anybody that -- they guaranteed that anybody that went to a public high school in kalamazoo would, in fact, have a full ride in college. and since they've done this, they've had thousands of kids now go to college that they would never have gone to college. it's improved property values. it's improved by 20% the number of students that are actually staying in school to finish to get that senior year of high school. it's created much more stability in the market. it's increased enrollment in western michigan and the other colleges, the community colleges and the other in that community. but these are the kinds of sort of private sector initiatives that the public needs to embrace and not sort of push away from. and we have to find efficiencies

in government because it is so wasteful. when you look at we are the biggest tax collector in the world and we can't balance a budget, it just doesn't make any sense to me. >> okay. elaine, you actually were a government performance czar before that term came into vogue. what can we do to improve government performance? >> well, there's a lot of things, there's a long list of things, but let me start with taxes which keeps coming up. twenty years ago we had this kind of weird idea, and the idea was why do americans have to fill out several different tax returns? in fact, all the information on them is being centrally located. how come the government can't just send them a postcard saying you paid this many taxes, you owe this much, is that okay with you? the vast majority of americans fill out the 1040 ez, they don't

have elaborate deductions. i think the people on this panel probably couldn't fill out that form, but i think -- >> not a chance. >> not a chance? [laughter] most americans can't. and at the time the answer was the incompatibility of the information technology systems. well, interestingly enough, we've come a long way, baby, and we can, in fact, do amazing things with information technology. and one of the things that we're talking about in massachusetts is coming to the irs. i'm on the governor's innovation council and coming to the irs and saying why don't we try the integration of our federal, state and local taxes in an information technology setting which for the vast majority of taxpayers who file ez, simple, straightforward taxes would simply get rid of the need to file a tax return and allow them to, in fact, get a postcard from the government can stating where

they are. .. >> my favorite one is the fda but i think there is this from fracking and the natural gas boom. at think about this. we have been developing for half a century. we have a regulatory scheme that is designed to improve one size fits all. okay?

i get a sore throat, i get penicillin, you'll get penicillin, penicillin is the key for everyone. science is on bioengineered drugs, et cetera, where, in fact, in the future we will each get a unique drug that is bioengineered for us. how on earth does that old regulatory system move to accommodate the new one? this is extremely difficult and, of course, they are bound by the systems, right, they are bound by their history, as we all are, and this is becoming extreme difficult. in area after area, and, of course, this is, particularly the cutting edge innovative businesses that constantly get frustrated. we can grow, we can get so much bigger, we can bring in so much more money, we could create 74 jobs. and yet, there's a regulatory apparatus is simply not done to deal with the rate of

technological change of the 21st century. so i think that would be the second way we could improve performance. the third way would be to take performance seriously. as i say, we have, the government is now up to its ears in performance methods. when i was having to be an advocate for the 20 years ago there was a brand-new idea. i said this is our profit and loss statement, this is our piano. the metrics that we established for this agency. the problem is what we're up to her is in the nobody takes them strictly. they are not used. they are not used to hold anyone accountable, and so wasteful things go on in the pentagon and if you're on a certain side of the political spectrum you completely ignore the. you don't want to see coming you don't want to hear about it, you know, you're doing this. things that go with hhs is with hhs if you're the other side of the outcome you don't want to hear about it. so these have not been used to create the kind of

accountability that would, in fact, improve performance. part of that is just the politics is overwhelmed the system of metrics. interestingly enough they are being used in an internal management in the government, and i think some good unveils. they're not being used to get the kind of accountability that you guys have to stand up to from our profit and loss statement, from your quarterly reports. so they're not being used at that level of accountability. that would be the third thing we should really look at, where are these revolutions and how can we make it have more teeth. >> so i'd like to throw out kind of a question for everyone on the panel, anybody wants to respond can jumping. is it time to rethink federalism and return some of the current federal responsibilities to the state and local levels or to the private sector? and if you think that, it do you have any candidates in terms of specific agencies where their

functions could be returned, or specific functions of governme government? >> can i interrupt, just go back -- >> god bless you for trying to simple by the tax reform and have as a goal over 20 years ago. it ain't worth it. and that's the problem. well-intentioned and really probably extremely well done. here we are 20 years later, it's worse than ever. no hope over the next five years that it will get better. i would bet there's no, but in this room that feels that his or her own tax return. my own tax return -- i'm guilty if i make mistake on that return with no materiality. and i can tell you what's in there at all. -- i can't tell you. that's one of the problem. my point is not that we have a tax problem. my point is that if you set as the gulf simplifying it, in your 20 years later and it's worse than ever, and that's what's wrong. >> and it goes back to my

initial point. because in the 20 years we have done policy through, in a roundabout way. we have a policy through tax reform. that's why when people are talking a tax reform, which i hope will be one of the things we get on the agenda, it's been a move forward that people suddenly discovered the amount of money there are in tax expenditures. because what happened is that we been doing policy through tax policy as opposed to take on policy straight on. that has added to the complexity of the tax code. that's added to people's unhappiness with the tax code, and it is not good government. i mean, it's ineffective government because it is a roundabout government. >> let me jump on that for a minute because again, policy, what does it lead to? so in the early '80s, i'm head of the real estate roundtable and we talked about that earlier, so talk about a specific thing and real estate

called for investment real tax property act that was put in place in the early 1980s. why? because the japanese at the time with the biggest guys in the world, buying everything up, and suddenly they bought pebble beach at rockefeller center and people said oh oh, my god, theye going to buy america. so there's is xenophobia. they came over, the united states, and we had to stop people. you can still buy all the general electric if you want but you couldn't buy real estate assets anymore. so they were prevented from owning more than 49.9% of real estate assets. a guy who created the built in this in action a few years later went back and said this is crazy. actually got it passed to the senate, it fell apart in the house, so since then -- both sides of the aisle, okay, and the white house, have been the last three years in multiple occasions said, you know, at least part of this should be

repealed. this is crazy. it doesn't even have a lot of scoring. it's six got a little bit of scoring but it is just sitting there. and you've got literally tens of billions of dollars. we have this year in real estate $350 billion worth of real estate that is coming up for refinancing, a lot of it still underwater and it doesn't have an equity home. so there's at least 50-75 billion sitting out instantly if we just repeal a piece of it. so you have the house and both sides of the aisle, the senate on both sides of the aisle, you've got the white house, treasury department, everybody lined up to do something but they can't do anything. why? because tax reform might come within the next five years. so it's just that there was a should of government in this incredibly polarized environme environment. >> it is very disappointing. >> why don't we open the floor to questions from the audience? we have a question over here. i think we have microphones

someplace. you can go ahead. >> my question is -- [inaudible] >> actually we have a microphone coming over for you right now. >> one of the senators who is about to retire said he can't wait until he gets into lobby. who writes the tax laws? congress. so even tng, they had in 1997 there was a thing called demaurice rule that got them out of $2 billion worth of taxes. so it's congress that really needs to be straightened out. how do we straighten congress out to really writing effective tax law? i mean, that's a big question because it's the lobbying of these people who used to say was a cottage industry.

[inaudible] how do we get around the lobbying? >> good question. congress and lobbyists. >> well, i can't, i can't say that this is, you've asked condit, the $64,000 question here, which is about a fraction of what a good tax lobbyist would make in a year. i think the on thing you can do is go back to say, sometimes it happens. and sometimes you get an alignment of some pretty good leaders, and they see that they are all, they all stand to gain from doing something together. the last time that happened was 1986. the tax bill with senator back well, congressman rostenkowski and it was president reagan. and they in fact got rid of a lot of very distorting elements of the tax code, which people would take, dentists were buying

empty shopping centers in the middle of the desert. it was a crazy time. that was the last time we did a big tax reform bill. and there are people who think that if we can get past all the posturing with this fiscal cliff and stuff like that, that the time has come for another moving together on a major tax bill. and, because there's so much of the lessons is, so much to complain about. the business roundtable has been out there leading the charge in single, this is crazy. our corporate tax rate is now the highest in the world. putting us in a pretty bad position. so, you know, again, i almost never say this, but this does come down to leadership, and this does come down to three people. the president, somebody innocent, and somebody in the house. been willing to put aside all

the special interests, lock the lobbyists out of the room, and come up with a tax bill. people know what should be in it, right? we know that there's a lot of justice done -- a lot of injustice done in the tax bill. but it does take that kind of moment to happen. it did happen once before in our lifetimes, and maybe it will happen again. and hoping maybe even this year or next year spend your optimistic? >> i actually am, only because in what happened in the discussion about the deficit is that it opened up a discussion about all the things that are impeding growth, right, and impeding innovation. so it has, in fact, brought these issues, these crazy tax expenditures, these crazy provisions in the tax bill. it is brought up in a way that it hasn't been brought up after a decade of war and terrorism, where people are thinking but other things. so, you know, look, what i bet

the house on the? no. but i am more optimistic than it would've been even two years a ago. >> hope springs eternal. >> yes. >> go ahead spent i would you say that my concerns, what i said before, is washington, d.c. has become portland, oregon, that you know, the 95 history of brookings has meant for me the proudest moment was the end of world war ii when they wrote the paper which ultimately became the marshall plan. and i was thinking again during my flight is brookings came up with the marshall plan for government today, would it be accepted? and i have a hard time getting the answer. >> we have done some research on the history of the marshall plan. would you like to comment on that? >> i will just give one point. i had a book coming out that's called how change happens, success and failure in american politics. and it starts with a marshall

plan. starts without any very unlikely situation, right, a president, harry truman, who was about as unpopular as you can imagine, a congress that was led by republicans and, a country that was sick to death of europe and sick to death of having anything to do with europe, how they passed the marshall plan. that's the opening to the. and what it shows is that, the 86 tax bill is in the book and there's goldwater-nichols, a lot of significant legislation. it shows there's no magic formula for change, and that change, change is a really complex phenomenon. you have situations where an incumbent president of one party make a great bipartisan deal with the other party, as did george bush in 2006 on immigration, and guess what? they all fall flat on their face. and they fail. so this isn't easy. it's not bipartisanship for

polarization. it's a complex interaction, and a lot of it is a public getting to a place where they are demanding change. and i think one of the things we do have now is a public that is quite sick and tired of washington, and quite sick and tired of the absence of progress, and how members take that, put it through their heads and come up with solutions i think is owing to be very interesting. by do think it's possible because i do think change is possible. >> would also have a fiscal crisis that may force action. >> that's what's forcing every thing. see, the prospect of the deficits for decades to come is enforcing a different mindset. you know, not the focuses of the mine, like a death, right? and so whether you're in an agency now and you're looking at, you're looking at a sequester or, no matter where you are, there's a different

kind of focus then there has been, listen, let's face it. just going back 20 years because that's what i was in the government, but the end of the clinton administration we had peace and prosperity. then we had 9/11 and war. that ate up a good decade, not to mention adding to the defic deficit. then we had a gargantuan recession and fiscal crisis. so we now are maybe getting a little bit back to normal, people are looking at this structure and the legacy of the last two decades, which is enormous deficits and saying okay, what do we do about this going forward? and that's were i think we get the potential for change. >> ron williams on the iowa has a question. >> the question is really based on -- what you learn business is once an organization is created, once it lives it wants to grow.

and that organizations also have a way of becoming their own customer. ending this is it just doesn't work because there's no revenue in being your own customer. so the question really is a sidestep question which is, what happens if we can develop ways to sunset organizations, regulations that would require a review of the original problem which is often a very legitimate problem, doesn't still exist, does it require the same solution. the second question or comment is around risk, and i'm always reminded of a letter i keep think i got from a state regulator, who shall go nameless. it was a letter of non-disapproval. [laughter] 's. >> that's typical. >> the whole question of government and regulation set up to avoid any potential risk, and the world simply isn't that neat

and tidy. and i think that's another important area because given the authority and responsibility, people will probably say how do i carry it out. >> great questions. >> you know, risk is endemic in business. and you don't have gained without risk, so i think the same thing to some extent true in government, but in government you don't get paid for, yeah, for taking any risk. and i think that is part of the problem. you know, it's not a performance-based result. it's not a performance-based sort of direction. you know, the only performance you get is, you did whatever the policy of the moment is, and you don't take any of the risk. so i think it is a conundrum, and i'm not sure what, you know, what a good answer is. and i love your idea of figuring

out how to sunset in agency or two, because you are totally right, everything you said. you start an anti, the entity is meant to grow, because all the people have incentives to make it grow. then it starts eating itself and the beast becomes even bigger. and the government just never goes away. >> the other thing is, you know, on your risk and, that accountability, the other thing that government has a problem with is the taste of the world today. in business, it's going like a son of a. that government is not equipped to deal with the speed that's going on, so if all of those things out there in this moment right now that thank goodness we have these two experts to figure all that out. because it's a tough puzzle. >> so elaine, on the risk

question and is the question, i wonder if your idea on performance metrics is a way to have government be held accountable in ways that matter, and whether data analytics is a way to incorporate real-time information that can be used to improve government decision-making to respond to phil's speed question. >> there's government that actually does things, okay. so the social security administration processes, declares people eligible for their retirement. they process their payments, et cetera. i would put social security up against any insurance company in the country, in terms of the efficiency with which they do their job. and also in terms of the loss of revenue that they sustain. they are actually quite good at this and historically have been quite good at this.

so there are pieces of government that actually do things, you know, and a lot of them are quite good. i think where government has a bigger problem is in the area of regulations and in the area of taxation. because there they get into this absolutely no risk mentality. so the federal aviation administration, is not tolerable for them to have two airplane crashes a year. the public will not tolerate that. the public wants no crashes but ironically, by the way, the faa which was, which we did reinvent in the '90s, has just overseen 10 years of no major crashes in the united states. the united states is the safest place to fly in the world bar none. and, unicom to talk to people at faa and it's not a question of assessing risk. their goal is zero risk. talk to the 32 families who had

family members died from meningitis but they got from those old the steroid shots, right, they don't want a little bit of risk in drug compounding things. they want zero risk. so a lot of what happens in government is that there isn't the tolerance. there isn't a tolerance for any risk. and, therefore, there is the overcompensation going in the other direction, building elaborate systems, et cetera. and sometimes they are justified and sometimes they are not. there's a wonderful book from the 1990s. i would recommend to any view, it's called in pursuit of absolute integrity, how government regulations make government less effective. and there they are dealing with another kind of regulation, which is a kind of regulation to get rid of corruption. sort of corruption control. and again, they're the idea is zero corruption. well, in fact what they show in

the book is that a zero corruption architecture, in fact, in sub having not zero corruption and instead being quite costly, where if you were to say we would set a risk level at x percent, you know, loss and then five people you would probably do a lot better. it works in two ways. there's no risk, but the no risk mentality finds itself in every piece of the government. so i did a lot of work over the last 20 years with developing countries, and the big difference between the oecd countries and the developing world is that in the oecd countries we are drowning in regulation. our government is telling us. they are killing innovation and slowing down business, et cetera. because why? governments are by large very young.

in the developing world, they are drowning in corruption. they have no regulation. they are -- any regulation they do have is instantly corrupted. and they are so corrupt that, in fact, they got the opposite problem. they can't grow. so two very different, two very different kinds of outcomes. and has led to two very dinnertime sub legislation. >> you mentioned corruption. in rhode island were used to live, corruption was used by politicians as just a tip for good service on their flight. [laughter] >> just to the point about government doing things and corruption, just one data point, we're talking a performance of government at all levels, from the city, state and all the way through. so in the city, detroit schools, they went into bankruptcy. financial manager came into the state, first thing he did was make everybody picked up their payroll check. guess what? only 3000 people to pick up

their check pick some of them would be picking up a check in the mail for 25 years. so again, talk about, you do this for 25 years, somebody would have to pick up a check, any business environment. it wouldn't happen. so when you see that kind of waste and fraud, it's inexcusable here but it exists at many levels. >> in the developing world, that is absolutely the norm at every level of government. there's even a term. they are called ghost workers. >> in the very back there's a gentleman with his hand up. >> thank you, sir. thank you panelist today. thank you, strobe, for the forum today. i want to depart pretty much in the overview of the discussion and invite ideas a commercial from the chairman. mutual friend of ours, a longtime mentor of mine, and one among your board of directors has on his living room table top a statute of nike at the

summaries. and whatever pointed out, she'll give a conversation about cultural. brookings being a vanguard a discussion about foreign affai affairs. did you, mr. knight, talk about nike's role as an icon of american soft power, global economic -- [inaudible] >> that's easy to. [laughter] >> you know, i mean, i don't think we really think ourselves that way. if we do the things that we do well, you know, that may well develop. obviously we tried to run off business, including marketing and marketing in an effective way, and with associate ourselves with a lot of real hero's. and sometimes that's backfired. using that today with lance armstrong, you know, confession ideas or near confession,

whatever we will find out tomorrow night ideas. but we just tried to do what we do and do it well. and sometimes it works. i don't think we ever set out to be the things that used, that you talk about. we just tried to do the right things and do them well. >> okay, other questions? here, the mayor. >> just an observation. to become more efficient you've got to be concerned about being efficient, right, in government. [laughter] >> there's not that many business people in elected office, and business people are not the answer. i'm a businessperson, an entrepreneur. i just happened in mayor right now. most people who hold and it elected office cannot have training inefficiency or high-performance. so they don't understand how to run an organization.

so we've got a fundamental disconnect over the people that are overseeing large bureaucracies and billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars in resources without understanding the basic principles of total equality or leadership or management. for some reason as a country we allow that to go on. so that's the fundamental issue. but government is a service business. people want to act like it's something we can't understand but we deliver services. they are our cities out there, i'm sure, portland is not one of them. you know, government has delivered most at the city level, right. these people know their mayors and hold them accountable and box there is. when you come to washington, it is so detached from main street is really hard to hold anybody accountable. so there cities out there, and level we have a principle. each one of our divisions, the top quartiles performance, our goal is to be the best city government in the country. we benchmarked was the best and

what each process is. we measure that. is a gap if we're not the best, we have things and work on the. is not obligated. it's usually hard to skew. but ultimately you have to have people interested in is really boring thing, management, leadership. we get so distracted, especially in washington that we don't even talk about that. so there is hope. i was it most when you look around the country is at the local level, and it is getting a plug for cities spent but not all the agencies can be in the top 25%. that's like lake will be gone, all the people are above avera average. >> let's give everybody a try and go from there. >> can i just say to that, that the performance management revolution which is now about 20 years old, where it is headed its biggest impact is at the city level. using real transformations in new york, in baltimore, and legal. you've really seen a great deal of progress. and i think part of it is that what cities do is easy to figure

out and measure. you can figure out if that street is clean, if the bottle has been filled, et cetera. so at lends itself in a very clear-cut way. and the public can understand. performance management in washington is an extremely difficult task. in the army you can measure the performance of the commune, general motor vehicle division, right? we do that. but how do you measure going to the state department? how do you measure the effectiveness of the policy and planning office? it took what 60 years to figure out george kennan was a genius question that having metrics for policy that is at all meaningful. so lots of things in the federal government are not comparable. they are literally no benchmarks for them in the world. there are no benchmarks to the united states military, for much

of what it does, and that is by the way 50% almost our discretionary budget. there are no benchmarks. the performance revolution which has been so powerful at the city level, somewhat powerful at the state level is most problematic at the federal level. and they keep running up against this year after year after year. >> one of the last brookings meetings, strobe, somebody made a comment, to be a good mayor, good governor, a good president, good cabinet officer the path to not only be a good manager, you have to be a good politician. i never thought about it that way but you really do need to be both. those are almost conflicting skill sets. they are really not that many people that do both very well. and that's i think part of the problem. >> on that, i know, for instance, you're a hell of a politician. think about that spent who are you talking to? >> you. [laughter]

>> so as a business guy -- >> are you -- [inaudible] >> think about it this way. you are selling ideas. you have competition. you have complex business settings that you deal him. that's what the political world is. i used to sell the coca-cola and am pm, and so selling public an idea or product is not really that much different than selling a political idea. so i would say there's a lot of similarity to that. and so you can be a good businessperson and a a good elected official at the same time. >> i will make one other comment. and i go to asia a lot, we have business over there, and i get asked, and they know they're not perfect, okay? the center government does make decisions. you get asked a lot, and show the two-party system and its in such gridlock, yet we can make decisions. we train our people to get to the point where they make decisions. before they get to the point where they're actually the senior leadership vision, they have gone through a whole bunch

of steps. and that central government is trying to get to the point of sort of bridging the politician and businessman by putting that person in managerial post. they don't just elect somebody, and then that person now is ordained to create policy, then gets written in an has no relationship to reality. so there's more -- i will say this more pragmatist. i know all the differences in developing countries, second largest gdp. but it makes decisions and it gets things done. maybe not perfectly because we would all like the democracy we live in. but it does have trained people moving into these jobs. and i think that many of our leaders, you know, don't have both hats that they can wear. >> i think we have time for one more question. the gentleman right over here with his hand up. and after that we will invite glenn up for closing comments. >> just a question about

lobbyists involved. i wonder what is wrong of big money in campaign financing, in terms of contributing to more complex regulation, and legal corruption. >> yes. >> i think it's pretty easy. i think that whenever you allow your tax code to get extremely complex, whenever you allow your regulatory to get extremely complex and you are doing all sorts of things through your regulatory system that you're not supposed to be doing, you then create an interest, and any interest creates lobbyists. and so what you have been is a reinforcing function of dysfunction, if you will. because you get, somebody is

making money off it. so everything that's irritating fill, somebody is making money by using that tax break in a certain way by manipulating that, et cetera. so the lobbyists, the role of lobbyists is particularly pernicious and that the most money to be made is not in these great big, you know, lofty ideas of policies to but most money to be made is down there in the weeds of the tax and regulatory system. and complexity is the friend of lobbyists. >> okay. maybe we have time for one more question since that was such a clear and succinct answer. >> thanks very much. i'm derek mitchell and i write "the mitchell report," and i want, i want to pose a framework

for how to think about this question, it seems to me, that we are being asked to think about and address today, which is innovation in government and how it can help america be more competitive. and it seems to me that in order to do that, and mr. knight talked early on about culture. taliban also talked about. is for people who have not had experience with government. to understand the complexity, the insidiousness of the competing cultures that exist in government. and if we stay here in washington, d.c., you know, there are article i people an article to people, and they don't care much about each other. there are, in article one, the senate and the house have about

the same amount of love for each other that the executive branch and the congress do. within both of those houses, the republicans and the democrats spend most of their time trying to eat each others hearts out. and then when you go to the executive agencies, you have an interesting management challenge, which is you have x number of people at work in an agency, 2% of home are revolving -- 2% of whom are door types, they can make a well. 98% of people who are there for a lifetime. so it seems to me when we talk about how to drive innovation through government, it needs to be done with a realistic perspective about the nature of the animal itself, and that, that animal has become more complicated and more complex

because of our common you know, divisions in this country. i think i just want to say that anything that can be done with him to increase the interaction between people who have not had experience in government with those who have, really makes a difference. like elaine, i had at the state government level, iran a reinventing government process for three years. it was remarkable to see the different perspectives from the private sector people that we involved in that reinventing government process when it was over. they were different people. they thought differently about government. and i guess i could say question marks what do you all think about that, but i don't know if there is a question there, except to say that the complexity of the cultures is enormously important and often

overlooked when we get into this subject it seems to me. >> there has to be an openness to a business culture and the business person using in that indictment. it can't just be with due respect to brookings and everybody else in this environment. it can't just be people and out of government, and academic world. that tends to reinforce each other, because the academic and governmental role, and the people that focus on politics, and love it, they are brilliant at it, they don't really care about this. and when business shows up from the room, they are very articulate about why it doesn't make sense. and so we have a leadership that really doesn't -- my personal view, we have the leadership that does not really care as much about the business in the room and their opinion as much

as what you just described. >> okay. we are out of time but i want to thank phil, bobby and elaine for sharing your views with us. phil, we still want you to be a trustee after this panel. [laughter] [applause] >> and i want to introduce glenn hutchins to make closing remarks. >> maybe want to rush out and buy some nike gear. [inaudible] >> about 100 years ago, robert brookings found at the brookings institution. it come to washington, i think stroke, at the invitation of woodrow wilson to explore bringing businesslike approaches to government. after his service was over, -- [inaudible] >> republican coming to work for democrats in a nonpartisan way. not bipartisan but nonpartisan.

and part of his vision was to combine this is practices with first rate analytics and world-class scholars, like martin and darrell and bruce been with us today, elaine. to create policies that could have real-world impacts for problems that were important to our country. and i think, you think about what we did today, we serve mr. brookings mission quite well. the first panel explored a business and government can work together at the local level on advanced manufacturing to address our unemployment crisis and restored middle-class jobs in the country. the second panel look at the fiscal situation, talked about how a nonpartisan group of business people has come together, to put pressure on our politicians to do the right thing, restore confidence, create conditions under which our economy can grow. and this most recent panel has focused i think quite accurately on how one quote unquote manages

or brings business management type of practices and business to cover. so as i said goodbye to you all today, i will assure you about robert brookings will rest in peace tonight. with the knowledge that 100 usually, nearly 100 later, this institution is navigating the course. thank you. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations]

>> [inaudible conversations]

>> [inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations]

>> [inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations]

>> [inaudible conversations] >> over the past couple days johns hopkins university in baltimore has been hosting a summit on reducing gun violence. speakers have included new york city mayor michael bloomberg and maryland's governor martin o'malley. this afternoon at 4 p.m. eastern they will hold a news conference releasing the recommendations. we will have live coverage here on c-span2. at this time of each of the governor's address their state legislatures on the state of their state. the speakers lay out the priorities heading into the new year and tonight at 7:30 p.m. we will take you live to the kansas statehouse for an address by the

state governor, sam brownback. we will have it here on c-span2. >> this weekend marks the 57th presidential inauguration. sunday it is the official swearing-in ceremony at the white house. live at noon eastern. coverage include your phone calls and it begins with a look back at the president's 2009 inaugural address at 10:30 issue. monday it is the public inauguration ceremony with the swearing-in starting around noon eastern. throughout the day we will take your phone calls and comments on facebook and twitter. live coverage starts at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. also on c-span radio and online at c-span.org. >> a quick reminder we will go back to the summit on reducing gun violence in baltimore, maryland, at johns hopkins university. new york city mayor michael bloomberg and maryland's governor martin o'malley will be holding a conference releasing

the recommendations. here are the root opening remarks from this conference on yesterday. >> as you well know, we gather exactly one month to the our after the horrific, unfathomable massacre in newtown. the specter of that event will weigh heavily on our discussion and on all the debates currently raging in washington. that it is also important to know where we are gathering. in the past year alone, there were more than 2700 gun related crimes in baltimore. sadly, this is a place where gun violence is not a surprising event, but in part to me quarters of our city, a tragic and all too commonplace part of life. on this aching anniversary, gathered in a city that must contain daily with the unforgiving poll of gun violence, the importance of this summit cannot be overstated.

because our conversation over the next two days will take place against the backdrop of a bleak record of policy reform in this area, it is tempting to regard this summit as one more exercise in futility. essentially the skeptics fear is that good ideas for gun policy reform are no match for the interest that oppose gun control legislation. this is so even after an event as cataclysmic as newtown. yet today, i urge a more optimistic view that is predicated on the belief that we are not lavishly tethered to the current matrix of an adequate national gun law. despite a long history of failed legislative and policy reform of opportunities inexplicably squandered, and of tepid passed measures adopted, progress is

possible. and my optimism stems from two sources. first is a backside and other countries, other countries have adopted nontrivial policy changes in response to gun violence that have improved public safety without trenching unduly on personal liberty. it is true that jurisdictions like australia, britain and brazil have never had constitutional guarantee protecting individual rights to bear arms. but their political institutions are different than ours, and that gun culture is an alien concept. but that are telling lessons to be gleaned from their approach each country has taken successfully the one loss of life from gun violence. we can and we must learn from the experience of others. the second source of my optimism lies in this country's history. in recent decades there is no denying the seachange in public

sentiment that is undergirded public health policy reforms in areas as diverse as drunk driving and public fascination. big tobacco presented a seemingly impregnable barrier against regulation, intel that happen. this is often the story behind monumental changes in u.s. policy. consider the civil rights act of 1964. it took lyndon johnson's legislative genius to process forward, beat back resistance and over, what seem to be an unshakable logjam. in short, in our lifetime we observed enough nontrivial policy change to recognize that the iron grip of static coal forces can be shattered and policy can progress. in the next few weeks we can anticipate and hope that the debate over the effect of regulation of guns and the appropriate balance between

individual rights and civic obligations will command sustained and serious attention from our political leadership. advocates will mobilize as lobbyists apply to cases, and politicians will fight over the issues. we know that. and in this unruly mix, universities like ours can and will discharge a critical role providing principle holdings for this debate. here at johns hopkins, our scholars have been investigating the public health affects of gun violence for well over two decades. for the past 17 years, the center for gun policy and research, as visited by our colleague him has provided a home for the study, producing nationally recognized research and recommendations aimed at understanding and curtailing the impact of gun violence. by now, the research produced by the center and others, we have accumulated a wealth of knowledge, and we hope much of it will come to the floor over

the next two days. this summit has convened scholars and advocates from all fields, and across the world. we want to use this opportunity to cut through the end of the shrill and incendiary, a rancorous and the baseless by identifying specific recommendation, that evidence-based analysis shows will work and can be rendered congruent with principled and with our legal institutions. of course any possibility of change depends on a complex alchemy of ideas, true political strategies, and leadership. in the gun policy debate, as in so many other issues, there has been, there has been no more effective leader and the namesake of the school, johns hopkins graduate, new york mayor michael bloomberg. [applause]

>> mayor bloomberg convened the first mayor summit on illegal guns in april 2006. following the video taken at the mayors shared intention to crack down on illegal guns using quotes every tool at their disposal. after all, he concluded, this congress will take the lead, we have to. and so he has. in the nearly seven years since, he is made the removal of such weapons from the streets of new york a primary focus. he has led the growth of mayors against illegal guns, to include more than 800 municipal leaders of all political stripes, and nearly a million followers. and as a defender of the second amendment, he is focused on the reasonable taliban restrictions that will make the greatest difference for public safety. in fact, the mayor, standing alone, may comprise yet a third

source are my optimism. in public health issue after issue, from tobacco to obesity, he has exhibited courage, stamina, and focused determination when working to enact lifesaving policy changes. his ideas are grounded in research and data, and his commitment is absolute. in short, i would not want to find myself on the opposite side of an issue in which he has invested his considerable intellectual and political skills. mayor bloomberg will speak in just a moment. at this point, however, i would like to invite to the point governor martin o'malley. [applause] >> wait a second. a former mayor of this great city, a longtime supporter of johns hopkins and a national leader, fighting crime in maryland has fallen by more than 24% since the governor was elected to office in 2006.

under his leadership, state officials have participated actively and aggressively in task forces and other partnerships with baltimore, and other municipalities. the state created assessment tools to identify individuals and community supervision with the greatest propensity to prevent future violent crime, and launched collaboration to share relevant information with neighboring states such as virginia, d.c., delaware and pennsylvania. the governor has supported efforts to prohibit it assault weapons and just this last week predicted that maryland's general assembly will been such a guns during the current legislative session. all you have to do is look at today's losses you can post to see the scope of his commitment. maryland sessions started last wednesday so i know the governor has just a few things on his plate. his decision to join us here today is clearly a reflection of the deep commitment he has to this cause. governor o'malley, welcome back

to johns hopkins university. [applause] >> thanks a lot. my honor. mr. president, thank you very much, and thank you for the amazing work that goes on here at johns hopkins, intel me realms, including here at the bloomberg school of public health. it's always a great honor to be here, especially to play warm-up act to mike bloomberg at johns hopkins, proud alumnus. very few of your sons i daresay, mr. president, have done quite so much for hopkins as mayor bloomberg has. he's been also a terrific friend to the city of baltimore. and we are here, we were here together just this past april, in fact, to dedicate the charlotte r. bloomberg children's center, named in honor of his mother. which looks i think like one of the most handsome new buildings in baltimore, as i drive by.

look, a great american once said, no nation whose citizens do to walk their own streets is healthy. and there is a sickness in our country. that sickness is gun violence. it's fitting, therefore, that we're here at the bloomberg school because gun violence is truly a public health issue. it's about the health of our cities and our towns. it's about the health of our neighborhoods. and our economy. it's about health of our schools, and our school children, and our communities. and the health of our neighbors. mayor bloomberg, the people of new york have seen is an effective, results oriented mayor, one of the most effective results oriented mayors ever to serve new york, or dare i say, nec. creating jobs, expanding opportunity, improving city

schools, launching america's largest affordable housing initiative. well, quite honestly everything they do in your can be said to be the largest initiative. but i should say also the largest and one of the most innovative affordable housing initiatives, and also fighting crime. really showing us the people of new york have shown the people of baltimore that it is possible to make a safer tomorrow. that we do not have to resign ourselves to the circumstances and the way things have always been, or what we've never been able to do in the past, and that, in fact, we can save liv lives. and each life is precious. each life is important. and if you save just one life, it is as if you have saved the entire world. ..

this is certainly not an easy issue for many elective figures. the mayor courageously chose to step up again and again bringing other like-minded neighbors together including our own courageous mayor stephanie blight and he did so consistently. his leadership really matters now because with the tragedies that have happened across the country in colorado, in wisconsin and most likely in

connecticut, there is a white envelope for accomplishing the art of the possible for putting in place common sense things that can prevent the sort of gun violence that has taken too many lives from us. all of us are here today because we agreed that this issue is of paramount public safety importance and there is no important responsibility than any government has in protecting and safeguarding the public safety of the citizens of free tenure period of time the cities of america that achieve the biggest reductions in driving down violent crime have been new york, and also just behind new york was baltimore. over a tenure period, baltimore was number three. so, preventing violent crimes, locking up the bad guys, keeping

assault weapons from falling into the hands of disturbed people who are a danger to others, these are not barometric pressures, these are not whether forces, these are not conditions brought about by the gulf stream, these are human problems and so too are there solutions. you will be pleased to hear that in maryland we are taking up this issue again in this year's legislative session, and i do believe that this year we will have success. later this week we will be introducing a comprehensive legislative package that looks not only had weapons and the licensing of weapons and background checks the superintendent of state school systems will also be looking at health and mental health. our commissioner of mental health and hygiene also joined by marcus brown, our superintendent of state police. so this will be a comprehensive

legislative package to prevent gun violence. and it addresses not only the guns but mental health and school safety. briefly, it will ban military assault weapons that have no place on the streets of baltimore or any other place in the state and it will also limit the size of magazines in order to make it harder for criminals to gun down in succession police officers or schoolchildren. it will second we have a common sense licensing requirement for handguns that respect the traditions of hunters and sportsmen. third, it will contain a real substantive reforms. to improve mental health services, reforms like more timely data sharing, investments and better treatment, and the creation of a new center for excellence on early intervention for serious mental illness so that we are able to utilize more effective early intervention

strategies and finally it will invest in our schools to improve the safety of their facilities. so many of us have visited schools and we know with the primary mission being the educational mission that there is a wide spectrum one that comes to the safeguards in place on simple things like the door being locked and visitors being checked in and the like. so we will be creating a fund within the capitol school budget for only one of about a dozen states that invest in school construction, and that fund will help us bring schools up to higher standards and we will also be creating a maryland school for center of safety that will bring together all enforcement with school officials so that we have better advice for school officials on

the things we can do to better safeguard the campuses of the schools. in conclusion as we get to enter this honor and accomplished guest neither mayor bloomberg are one to ban guns. at the same time, we know that it makes absolutely no sense when you look at the level of carnage on the streets from the guns to bring every factor but guns. if we are going to have a comprehensive approach, then let us be comprehensive including comprehensively looking at the licensing requirements for guns. with the practical common sense things we can do together to save lives. there may not be in, perhaps

there is no way to completely prevent the next newtown tragedy. but then again, perhaps there is. none of us can predict the future. none of us can properly assess the value of the preventive programs that keep another tragedy from happening. and yet we know every life is valuable, and therefore that's why our inability to predict the future and the ability to fully pinpoint the value of the present a deductions cannot be an excuse to keep us from doing common sense things that can work so this is not about ideologies, it is about human dignity, the dignity of every individual life, for every one of those kids in connecticut, the dignity of every child and a person in the united states of

america so, it is with great honor that i introduce to you a man of the effectiveness and great political courage mayor michael blumberg of the great city of new york triet [applause] >> thank you. governor, number one, thank you for arranging your schedule for being here today. the governor you should know has always been a strong leader on gun violence. i remember meeting him in his office in baltimore before odd was mayor who come he was mayor of this great city and she was focusing on tackling a gun crime then and as governor now, he is doing exactly the same thing for the people of maryland. maryland is one of the states that have an urban, suburban and rural part of it and has all the problems that we have across the country, public health, public

safety, education, economics, and it also has something that is very valuable that happens to have a good governor and i've been a fan of governor o'malley for a long time and i also want to thank you for your support for johns hopkins. it's a great asset for baltimore and maryland, but it's a great asset for this country coming and you and you're elected officials in el katulis deserve a great deal of credit for recognizing that. i hope that we have paid a back and then you are getting something for your money. it's great to be back at my all modern, johns hopkins. the president called me a few weeks ago and said putting together the best minds in the world on gun violence to produce a conference and a book and then when you help keep it off, to

get off come he didn't have to ask twice. the fact is they were able to pull this conference together so quickly i think does show the dynamic and the commitment to scholarship and public service that i've always thought defines the hopkins spirit. it is clear that we meet today at a critical and i hope a hopeful moment. just one month ago at roughly this time on december 14th, a deranged young man pulled into the parking lot of the sandy hook school in connecticut and shot his way into a building with a high capacity semi-automatic rifle and the slaughter of six adults and 20 children really broke the heart of the -- the country's heart because for many americans, this is the straw that has broken the camel's back. since the sandy hook massacre, you should know that more than 100 mayors from across the

country have joined our bipartisan coalition that we created called mayors against illegal guns that brings our total number involved to more than 800, and as of this morning roughly 1 million americans have also signed on to our collections i demand a plan campaign against gun violence, and this week i hope as soon as tomorrow, vice president biden will announce his recommendations for action to the president. i've spoken with the vice president numerous times since the sandy hook massacre coming and he knows that as horrific as sandy hook has been in all of the episodes of mass violence, we experience that level of carnage or worse every single day across our country because every day of the year an average of 33 americans are murdered with guns. here is another way to think

about what that means. one week from today, president obama will take the oath of office for his second term, and unless we take action during those four years, some 48,000 americans will be killed with guns, nearly twice as many people as were killed in combat the during the entire vietnam war. i've made it a very clear that our bipartisan coalition of mayors is supporting seven measures country that need for legislation and for that require only executive action. we are hopeful the president and vice president and i want to talk to you on each of them briefly. first and most urgent, we need the president and congress together to require a background check for all gun sales including a private sales at gun shows and online. these private sales now account

for more than 40% of all gun sales nationally, which means that in 2012 alone, there were more than 6 million gun sales that happened with no background checks. many of them being sold are handguns used in about 90% of all firearms murders, and across the united states more than 80% of gun owners and more than 90% of americans support requiring background checks for all gun sales so there is no debate here. it's common sense. we have laws on the books that require a background check when the dealers sell guns it's time for the president and the congress to make that a lot of land for all sales. 40% where it doesn't apply to the means law is basically a sham to give second should make gun trafficking a federal crime.

in new york city 85% of the weapons we recover from crime scenes come from out-of-state sources that the federal law is designed to curb illegal sales across borders are incredibly weak. criminals who traffic to get a slap on the rest. we've made new york the safest big city in the nation in part by adopting tougher gun laws and proactively and forcing them. every state in the union has citizens killed by guns coming from another state, and every state is powerless to stop the mayhem. until congress gets tough on trafficking, guns will continue flowing to the streets from states with loose gun laws. the measure to support is limiting the availability of military-style weapons and high-capacity magazines with more than ten rounds.

these guns and grumet are not designed for sport or home defense. they are designed to kill large numbers of people quickly. that's the only purpose they have. they belong on the battlefield in the hands of our brave professionally trained soldiers not on the streets of the cities, suburbs or rural areas as retired military leaders like colin powell and stanley mick crystal have said. many of the weapons in the category with previously banned under the federal assault weapons law that expired 2004 and that was incidentally first initiated and passed by joe biden. so she's the right person for to appoint whom we should do next. assault weapons falls within the bounds of the second amendment and so does everything else we are urging.

this isn't a constitutional question, it is of political courage. the supreme court that defines what the constitution means and says has ruled that reasonable regulations are consistent with the second amendment so when the government raises the second amendment is nothing more than a red herring. it's time for the second amendment defenders in congress to call them to read that three measures i mentioned require background checks for all the gun sales making gun trafficking if federal crime and limiting military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. we require leadership from the president and members of congress but there are other steps president obama can take without congressional approval. if any time he chooses with just the stroke of a pen. vice president biden understands this and we hope his recommendations will include at least these four steps that

we've urged him to do. first, the president can order all federal agencies to submit the relevant data that they have to the national data base because every missing record as a potential murderer in the making. if the data isn't in the database, those people that use the database don't get what they needed to read the federal law says they shouldn't. second the president can direct the justice department that makes a parody of prosecuting criminals that involved personal information during gun purchase background checks. if even criminals go and buy where they know there's going to be a background check except they lie. as a matter of fact, during 2010, there were more than

76,000 cases referred by the fbi to the justice department to read do you know how many were persecuted out of 76,000 in 2010? the last year we have data for? 44 triet knott 44,000, 44 out of 76,000. this is a joke and it's a sad joke. these are felony cases involving criminals trying to buy guns at our federal government is prosecuting less than one-tenth of 1% of them. it is shameful and it has to end and the president can do it by picking up the phone and saying to the justice department this is your job, dewitt oral will get somebody that will. further, the president can make a recess appointment to head the federal bureau of the alcohol tobacco and firearms. the atf as it is called hasn't had a director for six years.

can you imagine how much outrage there would be if we were without a homeland security secretary for six years? this is as much a public safety threat as it would be if there were not a secretary for homeland security. if the congress keeps blocking the atf appointees all the president has to do is make a recess appointment. it is relatively easy and it's been done many times to go a around congress. you can't have an agency without somebody running it that it's going to do the job was created for and that is to protect everybody in this room, everybody in the city, state and country including those that we love the most, our children and those we have the greatest responsibility to, the police officers that run into danger when the rest of us are running the their way. think about it. if congress specifically said don't tell the public what's

killing our kids and police officers who are trying to protect us what you have a problem with that? of course you would. this is the fourth recommendation. stop supporting the tiahrt order, a congressman from which dhaka that got the congress to pass the law that keeps the public in the dark about who are the gun traffickers and how they operate. there can be no excuse for shielding criminals from public view. at the bidding of the gun lobby, conagra's has tied the hands of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms and has prevented it from releasing critical data law enforcement authorities and the public and unfortunately, the atf is not alone in getting dad by congress when it comes to the issue of guns. today our bipartisan coalition of mayors against illegal guns is reducing a report called access denied d telling how congress bowling to the gun

lobby has systematically denied the american people access to information about guns and gun violence. most egregious and outrageous, congress severely restricted the scientists at the centers for disease control from studying the epidemic of gun violence and they put similar restrictions on the scientists of the national institutes of health. congress has no business dictating what public health issues scientists can and should study. what are they afraid of? sitting here at johns hopkins our model is the truth shall make you free. many elected officials tried to muzzle scientific research and bury the truth, they make our society less free and less safe. today because of congressional restrictions, the cdc funding for firearms industry research totals $100,000 out of

$106 billion the national institutes of health is estimated to spend less than $1 million on firearm injury research out of an annual budget of $31 billion. to put that in perspective, the nih spends $21 million annually researching the headaches if that doesn't give you a headache it should. there are 41,000 gun deaths every year in america including about 19,000 suicides and many of them are children. every parent's nightmare. in new york city i'm happy to say, i don't know that it should be happy the i guess i'm pleased to say our suicide rate is less than half of the national

average, and one of the big differences is we have in who york tough don walls and nationally 51% of suicides are bonds. it's only 16% of the suicides. if someone wants to kill him or herself to find a way to do it we can prevent thousands of these senseless suicides with smart gun regulations, and we are proving it in new york city. unfortunately, the american scientists are not the only people that the congress has attempted to silence. in 2010, again at the gun lobby's bidding, congress included language in a funding bill that prevented a military officers and doctors ll as mental health counselors from

even discussing firearms ownership with severely depressed service members. there is a suicide crisis going on right now as you have read about i'm sure in our military. it's tough seeing and doing what we've asked our soldiers to do. we have an all volunteer army. if they come back and many of them really do have a problem. the congress instead of trying to help is doing everything it can to make it worse. our men and women in uniform deserve better. thankfully we will say that after the mayor's and retired military leaders urged the congress to rescind this prohibition, they did. but only last month and only after too many men and women in uniform have taken their own lives with guns. enough is enough. it's time for the congress and the white house to cut public health about special-interest

politics and it's time for the congress to stop gagging the scientists, military leaders and law enforcement officers and try to stop -- stop trying to hide the truth from the american people. that's why this conference and your work is so important, and i think it's fitting that this conference is being held at the bloomberg school of public health where so much outstanding and important work is being done in areas ranging from malaria research and environmental health to tobacco control and safety. it's all designed to as we say protect the health and save lives, millions of the time. reducing gun violence will have that kind of an impact, too. so i want to thank the school of public health for hosting this conference. you know, a few years ago dr. webster conducted a study of an initiative that we undertook in new york city.

identifying the most problematic out-of-state gun dealers based on crime data conducting an undercover operations of the sales practices and in suing those that sold guns to straw purchasers of those that lie about who was the actual purchaser and stand in for somebody that couldn't pass a background check. 24 of the problematic dealers settled or would put under court monitor and dr. webster found that in new york city, the likelihood of recovering the gun at a crime scene of one of the dealers almost overnight dropped by 84% of those are the ones we have to go after and the results are dramatic and almost instantaneous. our investigation never would have happened without the data that allowed us to identify the

problematic dealers, yet if it were i not to the nra we would never have access to read and more guns would have flowed onto the streets, and in all likelihood, more people would have been murdered. the undercover investigations we conducted were just one example of how we work to crack down on gun violence. had our urging of new york state legislature enacted the toughest penalties in the nation for illegal possession of a handgun 83 in the half year mandatory minimum prison sentence we also worked with our city council to adopt a law enabling the nypd to keep tabs on gun offenders in the city just as they track sex offenders. we on enforce those laws and others rigorously and that is a reason why new york is the safest city in the country. in the years that ended, new york city had the fewest murders in nearly half a century.

income terrible records they decided to be kept back in 1963 we've never had a year remotely as the year we just had. as hard as we worked our free and as hard as we have achieved, the reality remains that during 2002 there was still 418 murders in new york city, and a lot of the people that were killed were kids. while shooting incidents are down in new york city as well as murder site can tell you that on the first thing i lost i visited the three nypd officers who'd been shot by criminals. thankfully they also recovered but i think that might does demonstrate a flaw in the argument we've heard lately. the argument is the solution to bad guys with guns is a good guys with guns. the problem is that sometimes the good guys get shot.

sometimes in fact and they get killed, and i think the hardest part of my job, the part that i dread the most as the mayor is talking to the family of a police officer at a hospital to tell them that their husband, wife, mother, father, son or daughter won't ever be coming home again. the tragic fact is that across america to become fathers and mothers, friends and neighbors will experience that kind of pain and loss in their lives because of gun violence as well. the rate of firearms, homicide in america is 20 times higher than it is in other economically advanced nations and has to start this week with leadership from the white house. so, if you haven't done so, go to demand the plan of lord and joined the campaign for gun safety reform or call your

senator or congressman from the great state of maryland and say, you know, we are not going to take this and even if you vote to raise rates your assistance in congress are footing the right way if i don't get a chance to influence them but you want my vote, you do something about it. it is your responsibility to do it as much as it is the responsibility of the other senators and the other congressmen. so thank you for coming to this conference. your work is in the great tradition of your posts, the best public health school in the nation if you pardon me and prevent me to say that, let's hope it gets the attention that washington needs to pay. this is one of the big differences between what we have today and a safe great future for our kids.

thank you and god bless. [applause] .. also yesterday vice president joe biden presented president obama the refmtions for stemming gun violation. tomorrow the president will present the proposal to the media. that will happen at 11:00 eastern at the white house. c-span will have coverage. more from the summit on reducing

gun violation yesterday to take us the news conference at 4:00 p.m. eastern. >> so we are going to start the program now. i'd like to ask the presenters on the first panel to please take their seats. and i just want to say that there's information on the website about each of the bios of our speakers. i first thought i could say this is an all-star cast. then i started thinking, many of these people aren't just all-stars. they are like hall of fame as far as researchers and gun violence. so we are going to start our first presentation with dr. matthew miller because i can't go on and on. i'm going say one sentence about each speaker. dr. miller is a preimminent expert who published numerous articles that addressed the

question he's going to address today, which is the relationship between gun vainlt and -- availability and violent death. i'm going turn it over to dr. miller. [applause] >> good morning. i would like to thank daniel for organizing the conference and susan for taking care of the amazing logistic that made it possible. i would like to thank mayor bloomberg for the abiding commitment to this issue. this morning i'm going to talk about the -- i'll start by giving you a sense how we net

united states compare to other high end countries and look at the large disparity in lethal violence within the united states. as mayor bloomberg pointed out, most of the firearms suicides in this country are -- most of the firearm death in the country are suicide. they are in fact almost twice as many firearm suicide as there are firearm homicide. in 2010, the last year for which we have data, there were 19,000 firearms suicides. and about 11,000 firearm homicide. there are almost as many americans who die from gunfire from motor vehicle crashes and for americans under forty more die from gunfire than any specific disease. compared to other high income companies, the united states has a uniquely huge letted l --

lethal firearm problem. it has been said that a country can be judged by how well it taking care of and looking after the most vulnerable members its children. by that measure, we don't look very good. this slide is known give you a sense of the difference in the leathful violation in the united states compared to other countries in western europe, japan and elsewhere. for children five to fourteen years of age, in the united states they are thirteen times as likely to die from a firearm suicide. they are eight times as likely to die from a firearm accident. the united states surprised about one out of three people. almost nine out of ten children who died of firearm death lived

in the united states. there is no evidence that our children are more careless, suicidal or more violent. they are dying by gunfire. why? i'm going to talk about the relationship homicide and firearms. the first thing too get out of the way from the start we are not a more violent nation than other high income nations. we are not a more -- we don't fight and we do not commit more violent crimes. it's a mistake to -- if you look at the rates of violent crimes in the united states and compare them to other industrialized high income country countries what you see is the rates of burglary, robbery, sexual

assault and and all the violent crimes falls right in the middle. there are other studies that look whether kids in the united states are more likely to get in to serious fights at cool. they're not. there are other rates of mental illness in the united states and ask are we more mentally ill. do we have higher rates of suicidal behavior, mental i recallness, drugs and alcohol problems? no. what we have is more guns in the civilian hands. especially the handguns. with have much more permissive gun control laws and more homicide. s. here is another example how we compare to other countries. if you look at the last column, you see that we have more guns than other industrialized countries. and this measure does not actually show you a great disparity in handguns which are

the guns mayor bloomberg said are used in the homicide. the firearm -- it is higher than the other countries. our rate of homicide with nongun mechanisms, knives, bats or whatever is pretty much right where they are in the other high income countries. in that's effect, the column on total homicide rates is that our homicide rate is more than twice as high and sometimes four times as high as these other countries. we're not more violent but when we're violent, we kill with guns. this is a slide that my colleagues deb and kathy helped me pull together from data that are not ready available. what it's meant to show is this, where do the guns come from that are used to when people die by gunfire in this country?

and the big picture here is that for kids for older people and for women, the guns that kill them are household guns. they guy in the home and by to the best of our knowledge the vast majority of these guns are legally owned. they're not trafficked. we don't have good data on that. that's the general suggestion. for men fifteen to thirty years of age, and who are diagnose on the street, that's a different story. when you're thinking about the science, does the availability of guns in people's homes lead to an increase in the likelihood they're going to die, you have to ask what are the guns that are killing the people? are where do they come from? for children, older people, and women. they come from the home. from young men that are often occurring in the street. okay. so in looking at the totality of

the literature that has been developed over the past thirty years, individual level studies and studies that look at areas compare them to one another. ebbing logic studies. what we find where there are more guns, there's more death. there's more homicide, there's more suicide, and there are more firearm accidents. these studies have taken pains to try to control for differences between homes with and without guns. states with more and states with fewer guns. by taking these factors in to account, they try to render apple to apple comparisons. like to like comparison. what i'm going show you is a collection of states that have high levels of gun ownership and a collection of states that have the lowest levels of gun ownership. it's known illustrate -- it's known illustrate the magnitude of the difference in lethal

violence in places where there are many an few guns. in thinking about this, it's backed up by method dodgely rigorous study that controlled for the various factors at the state and local level as well as at individual level. okay. here's a demonstration. if you rank states with the highest level of gun ownership and lowest level of gun ownership and collect up to the point where you have 350,000 million over the eight year period and same thing with the high gun states. you don't have to worry about rate. you can compare people. we have the same number in the high as well as in the low gun states. let's see how we're faring. the high gun states had a population -- 50% of the people who live in high gun states lived in homes with guns. one out of two homes in the high guns state have high guns. one out of six in the low gun states. they did not differ in the rates

of mental illness. they did not differ in the rates of suicidal -- they did not differ in the rate of violent crime. let's look at lethal consequences. homicide for women in the high guns states over the eight year period there are over 3,000 women killed with guns. there were about 1,000 who were in the low gun states. the number of women who were killed with methods over than guns was not drastically different. the net effect was there were 6,000 women in the high gun states who were murdered. compared to about 3,000 women in the low gun states. the difference of 3,000 lives a ratio of two. you look at the children and you can look at older people and what you see is the same basic story. what about for men fifteen to

twenty nine in remember they're not dieing in the home. they are dying more often away from home. here the evidence is not as striking. but it's still there. there are more men dying in the high gun states by gunfire, 7,000 compared to 58,000, -- 5,000. not that big a difference for the nongun homicide rate. and a difference of almost 2,000 lives. even among this group of men who are dying more often in the street than in their homes. what about suicide? as i said, almost two out of three firearm deaths in this country are suicides and these are all by and large taking place in the home. with guns that have been there for a long time. the case control study done by several people here in the audience have controlled for various measures of

psychopathology. depression, alcohol, drug abuse, suicidal behavior and general. what the studies find is that people who live in homes with guns are not more suicidal. they don't have higher rates of mental illness. they have higher rates of dying by suicide. the rates are higher because they are dying more likely from firearm suicide. they are not dying from nonfirearm suicide. the risk of a gun is not only associated with the person who bought the gun. it's a religion critique of the literature. if i bought a gun, maybe i bought it because i was suicidal. you're going find more guns when you do a study. my kid didn't buy the gun and my wife didn't buy the gun. and the relative risk for them is high. it's higher for adolescence. just as the cigarettes you more the likely you are to die from lung cancer. the more unsafely you store your guns, the more likely your kid

is going to commit suicide with that gun. all right. here's a slide i put together along with my colleagues deb and kathy basher. and david hemmingway, and what this is supposed to show you is how you can actually disassociate rates of mental illness from rates of completed suicide. what this graph shows so you that it graphs the states from left to right in increasing order of the rate of suicide. diset by suicide -- death by suicide. when you look at the scielings distress and you can substitute suicidal attempt. there's no correlation how often people are thinking about killing themselves. there's no correlation how often they are admitted for mental health problems or depression with the rate which they are dying. people are no more mentally ill in one state compared to another by and large. but they're dying at higher rates by suicide when they live

in states with more guns. if you plotted a line of gun ownership on top of the graph, what you see is attract very nicely with the line showing you an increasing risk of -- rate suicide. okay. this renders in two dimensions what the method dodge call rig corp. of study have shown in general. they are tiny. i don't know if you can read them. i think you would agree there's one of these things that doesn't belong with the other. all right. there are two that go together and one that doesn't. two that go together are the pink and blue dots. they show a line a slope increasing from the bottom to the top. where is the green dots look like they're scattered randomly. what the pink shows is the relationship between household gun ownership in a state and the

rate of firearm suicide. what the green dots show is a relationship between nongun suicide and gun ownership. there's none. the net effect is that the blue dots, as you increase your -- if you live in areas with more guns, more people are dying by suicide. okay. it's sort of intuitive people when they're talking about homicide if someone shoots you you are more likely to die than if they try to knife you to death. people don't think about the suicide always in the same way. but the similarities similarities are actually are quite striking. firearms are the mostlet l method people use of all the methods commonly used. many suicidal acts like homicide l acts are impulsive. crisis is are temporary. and importantingly, very few people who survive an attack go on to die by suicide thereafter. very few people who survive a

suicide go on to die thereafter. what this means is that if you can save a life in the short run, you save a life in the long run. otherwise we would not see the strong relationship between gun ownership and the overall rate of suicide. nor for homicide. okay. here is a measure of the magnitude of what we're talking about. if you look at women in the high guns state there are over 4,000 who die by firearm suicide. there are about 500 in the low gun states. the rates of nonfirearm suicide is basically the same. net effect -- over the eight year period compared to 51,038. you can look at the numbers for men and we're talking about almost 18,000 more men. we can talk about the men who are killing one another, killing one another and you see the same

thing for women and children. they are using them in their home and dying by suicide at twice the rate when they live in a high gun state. okay. so the united states with our many guns and civilian hands especially handguns and with our very permissive gun control laws, has a far more serious lethal violence problem than other comparable qoped countries. -- developed country. in the united states where guns are more available more people are dying by suicide, homicide, and fired access. the consistency of the finding across different types of stoisd -- studies by different researchers at different times looking at different population is remarkable. there's no credible evidence otherwise. now firearm policy is often focused on guns used in crimes.

that makes sense when you're trying to prevent lethal homicide that are related to crime. it's an important focus. but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that what is most notable about the studies i reviewed here and about the strong literature in general is that what is the story that they tell more jrchl about guns most of which are household guns. the stock of guns we have, the 300 million distributed across one out of every three homes. the stock of gubs matters -- guns matters and so does the flaw. all right. i spent the last eight teeb minutes or there about tells you about the relationship between firearms and lethal death in this country. i haven't told you how difficult it has been to conduct this science especially over the past fifteen years since the cbc has effectively choked off funding.

few private fob dedications -- foundations have stood up in the breech breach with the notable exception of a new. mayor bloomberg gave you a good idea how much we are up against. i won't go in to any further detail. having studied the relationship between firearm violence and lethal violence for the past twenty years, i still think we can make a difference. and more over, we're obliged to act on what we already know. some of which i talked about this morning. in thinking about what we should do, i think it's fitting to acknowledge as mayor bloomberg mentioned that one month ago today, almost to the minute, in fact, twenty little children and six of their teachers were slaughted slaughted in newtown, connecticut. it would be a disservice to those people who died, i think, if in this forum, which is

inspired by their memory and committed to reducing the rate of firearm violence in the future if we didn't take pains to note what is both example lair about that sad day and what is typical and atypical. what is typical, is that a gun from the home was used in a suicide and a gun from the home was used to kill a family member. and it's much more likely that those events occurred than the gun is used to kim an intruder or injury an intruder. what is atypical about that devastating day is that so many little children and women were killed all at once. so quickly. with a high capacity assault rifle. of the 85 other people who died by gunfire that day in all likelihood, more 50 were suicides, and of the thirty plus

who died by homicide most were killed with handguns. most died, one by one, and most outrageously in term of statistics, a hugely disproportionate were young men of color in the inner city. i point -- because the first step in cracht -- crafting a solution to the public health problem is to identify what that problem is. that problem is this. year after year more americans are dying by gunfire in this country than are dying in comparable guns across the world. our nation has not done well by our most vulnerable and our littlest in this regard.

we have a uniquely american problem. it's a huge public health problem. we have come together to do something about it today. i pray that we can achieve some measure of durable success. thank you very much. [applause] [applause] >> our next talk is by professor philip cook. phil cook is a professor of economics and public policy at duke university, and unfortunately, professor cook could not join us today. but we have him ready as a video. i want to turn to our gentleman

here who knows how to make it happen. greetings to all of my friends and colleagues in firearms research. i'm sorry i can't be with you in person. and i hope that this format is not too tedious. i wanted to go ahead and discuss the paper that i'm contributing to the volume coauthored with -- [inaudible] that is the review of the old evaluation that we did of the act. we published that in 2000, and at the time it was a controversial paper. i think it's directly relevant to many of the discussions that are going on how now about possible new legislation that congress could enact. especially having to do with

universal background checks. so what i'd like to do, then is to talk about the results of that evaluation, and about the interpretation that we would give to it today. and then be on and talk a wit about -- bit about the possibility of universal background checks. so to get started, the general topic is selective prohibition with respect to firearms possession. the gun control act of 1968, divided the adult population of the u.s. in to two groups. there was the group who were disqualified because they had a felony conviction or because they were illegally immigrants or they were adjudicated as mentally ill or had some other one of the ten character i inches listed in the act. and then there's the qualified

population, which is everybody else in the vast majority of americans then have the right to possess guns, at least by federal law. this distinction was and has been enforced through two mechanism. one, through the deterrence mechanism, and most commonly through felon in possession laws. where the police, if they pick somebody up who used a gun in a crime, for example, and turns out they had a felony conviction on their record or some other disqualifying condition, then can receive an extra sentence in that connection. and the other mechanism for enforcement is i tried to restrict access through the regulation of federally licensed gun dealers. the regulation of transfers was

also against the 1968, to the gun control act, and remains in place right through 1994. it required that anyone who wished to buy a firearm through a federally licensed dealer had to sign a document called a form 4473, which indicated that they did not in fact have any of the disqualifying conditions. and that was sufficient then to authorize the dealer to transfer the gun to the buyer by federal law. the -- of course, obvious -- what was known as lie and buy, and certainly that happened at the time. so the brady handgun violence prevention act, which was implemented in 1994, then

strength end the enforcement effort through the regulatory effort by requiring not only the buyer sign the form, but also that the dealer conduct a background check to make sure they were telling the truth. let me say a few words about the timeline for the brady act. the in march 1981, james brady, who was serving as president reagan's press secretary was shot in the head at the same time the president reagan was shot by john hinckley. and brady and his wife sara then became leaders of the gun control movement and through handgun control became advocate for a particular package of legislation. after seven years of effort, it was finally enacted by congress in 1993.

it bears brady's name. the intirm of provisions went in to effect of february in 1994, then almost five years later, there was a permanent set of conditions or provisions that went in to effect. it was a permanent that startedded -- started at end of 1998 that includes the background system that we're familiar with. the notable provisions in detail of the brady act can be briefly summarized. the interim provisions, only affected handgun purchases they i did not cover rifle or shotgun purchases. and further more, they like the permanent provisions, were restricted to transfers by federally licensed dealers. it turned that only 32 states were directly affected. the other 18 states and the

district of columbia already had background check requirement, which was set aside for given the terms of the federal law. what we had during the initial interim period started in 1994 then was a requirement that dealers contact of local law enforcement officials and wait five business dais to gate response to see whether or not the buyer was qualified or disqualified. along the way? 1997, the supreme court actually ruled on one provision that brady act was known as the prince decision and of interest partly because of, of course, very recent we had a couple of important decisions based on second amendment grounds. but the prince decision was based on the tenth amendment

states' right provision and what it said was in fact the federal requirement that insisted that local law enforcement officers or state law enforcement officers conduct the background check that was overreaching, that the congress could not that, and so that threw out that part of the federal requirement. but as it turned out, it made hardly any difference because all but two of the states decides to go ahead with the background checks. the permanent provision of the brady act came in to effect in december of 1998, that expanded the background check to all types of transfers including shotguns and rifles. it replaced the five-day waiting period with an instant background check, which required the dealer to make a phone call and often would gate response from the fbi or from the state official that was relevant within a few minutes.

it there was any question the default to go ahead and transfer the gun within three days. so that brings us to the story of the evaluation that we did. the motivation for doing the evaluation was first of all, the brady act was the most important piece of gun control legislation since 1968, the gun control act. it was certainly a limited and certain respect. it was a big stride forward in that respect we had seen in all those years. and there was strong claims or high hopes for the effect i -- effectivenesses in saving lives and reducing gun violence. further more, it appeared that because of the way interim period was structured that it was possible and logically possible to conduct the strong

evaluation. the strong cause l evaluation of the effect of the law. we were fortunate enough to receive funding from the foundation and went ahead and if it. the design of our evaluation caused experimental design. there were eighteen states not districtly affected by the law looked to us like the states were a control group. the other thirty two states were in effect the experimental group for the effect of the law, and that by compare -- comparing the trajectory of gun violence for the group of states, we could hope then to tease out casual effect of the law on gun violence. the likely mechanism working in

the background in the case. the background check should prevent at least some felons from buying handguns from dealers, and thus reduce the chance they would be armed in a violent encounter if they were went ahead and robbed somebody and did not use a gun, the chance that the victim would die would be greatly reduced because knife and clubs are simply less lethal than handguns. further more, the waiting period part of the interim measure in the brady act provided a cooling off period. and that we thought thought it would make a difference for specific intent to assault somebody. it should be noted and returned to this the contrast between the so-called control states and the treatment states only work --

this experiment only works if it's reasonable to assume that the control states are not effected by the -- brady act. i'll talk more about that in a minute. the outcome messages that we used were from the vital statistic. we look at the both homicide rates broken down by gun and nongun and also the suicide rates. we choose to focus on the older perpetrators and older victims simply because it's a logical matter. the brady act would had little effect on those under 21. the handgun sales by dealers were already prohibited to anybody under 21, and that was already subject to a sort of a check which is that the dealer had to look at identification provided by the buyer.

what we expected is it was for adults over 21 who would be effected. this turned out to be important in the evaluation for other reasons as well. this all happened during a very volatile neared youth violence and by focusing on older victims, we were able to pretty much exempt our evaluation from that volatility and look at the more stable rates for older victims. the other thing to be said about the outcome measure is that we thought that suicide in this case was every bit as interesting as homicide and we included that in the evaluation. so if you look at the first figure, this one is victimmed -- limited to victims age 25 and older, what you see is that the rather remarkable fact that the average homicide rate in the control states was virtually identical to the average

homicide in the treatment states. until up until the implementation of the brady act. and that's true pretty much every year for the eight or nine years before 1994, and that -- that establishes this comparison treatment control being valid. in fact, these two groups of states are very similar prior to the act and they're following being influenced by the same other factors along whether they are demographic or whatever. the two are very similar. so what we're expecting to find then if brady is defective following the implementation we will see the homicide rate in the treatment states go down relative to the homicide rate in the control states. but question not see that. you again, look at figure one,

you will see that the two rates remain very similar following the act, and if anything, the average rates in the control states go down by more than in the treatment states. the difference being very small. and figure two, you can see the same kind of comparison now just for gun homicide rates where the effect, if any, should be concentrated. we get exactly the same pattern. very similar rates prior to brady. after wards continues to be similar. but if anything the control states do a little better than the treatment states. just the opposite of what we might expect. figure three and figure four produce the same results now for suicides involving victims 25 and over and you look at those in that case there's some gap in the averages, but they certainly follow the same trend and they follow the same trend before and

after the implementation with the brady act as a result. it does not appear there was any particular effect of the act i.t. beyond looking at the kind of graphic call evidence, we also did a regression analysis, what is known in economics at least as a dip analysis using the panel of states over the period 1998 to 1997. and what has become a -- analysis and what we ended up doing is controlling for a few other factors covariants by focusing on the implementation of the brady act to see whether it made a difference in the states where it had a direct effect. our findings were just what you would expect from looking at the

graph, that for homicide we found no discernable direct effect. for suicide we found no discernable direct effect. that both of those conclusions is subject to the qualification that there's a competence interval around that estimate of a null effect. then for example for homicide, the 95% confidence interval would amount to the range reduction in 13% all the way up to an increase of 8% in the overall homicide rate. that gives you some idea of the uncertainty about the company -- basic finding that we endorse the null hypothesis. the first question that might come up in looking at these

results people scratch their head and say, but, you know, after during that interim period there were over 300,000 people who were denied the purchase of a handgun. that is over 300,000 times during that five-year interim period. somebody went to a dealer and attempted to buy a handgun and was refused on the grounds they had a felony record or had some other disqualifying condition. that amounted to 2.4% of all of the attempted purchases. and 300,000 sounds like a big number. we might expect it would show up in the homicide rate or in the suicide rate, and so what is going on here. but we did some calculations based on evidence from california that seemed pretty directly relevant, which suggested that in fact those

300,000 denials might iowa amount to only about -- might amount to only about dozen homicide at best. that would be true even if they were not replaced with other sources of guns along the way. so that is not enough to produce a discernable effect in the homicide rate as it turns out. i would say at the time the most important criticism of our study was that we had ignored the possibility that the control states in fact were being effected by the brady act. not directly but indirectly through changes in underground trafficking patterns. prior to the brady act, it was very common for crime guns in

states like illinois or california, massachusetts, to come from states with very little regulation. maybe in the deep south along the way. and now that there's a federal requirement that establishes regulation in all of the states, then we would expect to see changes in the trafficking patterns because it became more difficult for gun rub -- runners to source the guns and those unregulated states. we did a case study for chicago later, and found it was exactly true. that you see a very abrupt and dramatic change in chicago in terms of the percentage of crime guns picked up on the street of chicago that were being sourced outside of illinois from mississippi or deep south. where before that was a standard

pipeline. so sure enough it does appear that the control states were effected in that sense by the brady act. on the other hand, in chicago when we took a look, we could not see any effect on the use of guns in homicide. so big changes in the underground market but very little change apparently in access by the violent people we're accounting for the homicide rate. and as a result were skeptical of the ideas that it really changed in trafficking patterns made much different in terms of gun use. all right. so if we step back and say, well suppose we were basically right. and that in fact the brady act is was in effective -- ineffective why might that be?

and very quickly we can be reminded of the limitations of that act and that were evident at the time or even more evident now, the greatest limitation is as it turns out, most criminals did not obtain their guns guns from lislessed dealers. they obtain their guns from the secondary mark of the informal undocumented market. much of which, by the way, is legal. by which is entirely unregulated by the bray i did act. -- brady act. even before the act with the background check went in to effect, there was one study that side over 80% of criminals obtain their guns from some source other than the unlicensed dealer. that's the greatest loophole. the second one it turns out the majority of murders or at least

people arrested for murder are probably not disqualified. at least they don't have a felony conviction. we did a study again in chicago where 60% of those arrested for murder in chicago did not have a felony conviction on their record. so in effect, that's another loophole in the law that the disqualifying conditions do not cast the net wide now have pick up the majority of violent criminals. the third loophole hole, it's true especially true in the 1990s that the background checks were only as good as the quality of the records they were accessing. and those records were severely deficient in the 1990s. there's been federal programs, revenue support to help the states upgrade the system and improve the data available for the instant background check and so presumably today it's more

complete than it was in the 1990s. it was another important loophole. all right. so lot of reasons or at least three to understand why the brady act might have been ineffective. at the same time, acknowledging the fact that our study had some limits of its own. so finally, let me try to provide a verdict generally on selective prohibition. again, reflecting on the study that we did, the first thing to be say is to remind everyone that our estimate of the effect of the brady act are not precease. our -- precise our result reeves -- leaves open the possibility it did save lives and that it saved enough lives to pass the cost benefit test.

after all every 1 percent reduction in gun death is 300 lives saved, and by current standards, that would justify a billion dollar program or more. so 1% reduction is not anything that our evaluation method could defect, and so we're left unsure about the possibility. but in fact, there was a small effect, in effect. it was large enough given the very high stakes of lives saved. to scare make it worthwhile. and finally, let me just say that the universal include check -- background check may -- if it were instituted produce larger effect that night brady act ever could. simply because you would close the private sales loophole. if the universal requirement could be effectively enforced,

then it would greatly add to the efficacy of the law. and -- those are remarks from yesterday. we'll leave it here and go live to johns hopkins university far wrap of the news conference to release the final recommendation for reducing gun violence. it's just getting underway. >> our speakers are going to make a few brief remarks. leave about fifteen minutes for questions. for the reporters here, we have a microphone. we ask that you state your question to the microphone so the audience at home can hear. we're just about to start. i would like to introduce you to president ronald j. daniels. president of johns hopkins university. >> thank you, tim, and welcome and thank you to the reporters covering this extraordinary gun policy summit. both here and on the internet. this has been a very important two days.

the summit came together in the wake of the tragedy in newtown, connecticut, one month ago. given the drastically high rates of gun violence in the united states, starkly illustrated by numerous mass shootings, movie theaters, shopping malls, houses of worship, and now at an elementary school but also experiencing on a daily basis in neighborhoods across our country, we knew at johns hopkins we could not let the moment pass. we wanted to do all that we could to bring together national and global experts, advocate and leader on gun violence and policy to present their research analysis and perspectives, thanks to the efforts of professor daniel webster, their colleagues at the center for gun policy and research at the johns hopkins university bloomberg school of public health, we were able to organize quickly and

thoughtfully an international conference on reducing gun violence in america. the call for action at the federal level, this summit is our effort to galvanize collective expertise to advance the discussion of gun violence in america through robust research and evidence. we also understood that a critical component of the summit would be to create a set of research-based policy recommendations that can inform, that can shape, that can support the policy debate. these will help lawmakers and opinion leaders identify the policy changes that are most likely to reduce gun violence in the united states. and you will hear the important recommendations in a moment. finally, as we indicated a number of times throughout the summit. we will be publishing a book on the summited that will be available to the public in just two weeks. that book will be published by

job hopkins press and capture the state-of-the-art research discussed over the last two days at the summit. before turning over the podium to daniel, i want to thank the scores of people, many of whom who are in the room that made the summit possible and successful in a remarkably short period of time. it was truly a herk leon effort. it was not scheduled conference. this was not something that had been planned months in advance. it was rather something pulled together on short notice because we felt the imperative to contribute to the important debate. i want to take the opportunity to thank fly new york mayor, and all of the presenters for the willingness to come together on short notice to take part in the important event. i'm now pleased introduce members of our faculty who organized the conference.

and presented research. i want to introduce daniel webster. they have done so much to make this event possibility. i'm pleased that dr. who was with the department of health policy management at the bloomberg school also has very important survey findings to share will be on the podium with me. i'll turn it over to daniel webster. >> thank you very much. thank you for your extraordinary support and leadership through the process. my colleagues at the johns hopkins center for gun policy and research and bloomberg school of public health. we're grateful for your leadership and support. the last two days have been really amazing experience for me to bring together the best scholars, the e best expertise to grapple with and come forward

with a set of recommendations that would be based on the best available research and experience. i'm going touch very briefly upon the e per tease that we assembled. as president daniels alluded to, we searched far and wide. we have individuals coming from several different countries to contribute to this effort. we have criminologists, public health leaders, legal experts, a really vast majority of span of experienced and expertise, and really many, many decades of working on this problem of gun violence and solutions to it. involving mass shootings, we tended -- go through a similar process, and prior to the most rented tragedy -- recent tragedy

in newtown, connecticut, we kept hearing similar sort of refrain of things that i knew to be not the case. we would hear nothing works, gun policies don't work, we would hear there's no agreement, there's too much division on public opinion. we can't address this because of the constitution. well, we brought together the scholarship to refute all of the efforts, and we think we have a set of recommendations that not only will be effective in reducing -- gun violence in america but will also be constitutional, and have very wide support among the public including most gun owners. we have distributed our press release that has the very specific recommendations, i'm

not going to go through every single one of those. i'm going to sort of talk about the general areas that we feel the reforms are necessary and would bring about important change to save lives. there was very strong consensus that the most important thing we need to do is to fix our current system for background checks. it is really indefensible we have a system that allows people to sell firearms with no background checks, no recordkeeping and no accountability. we recommend that this be changed so that every single firearm transaction except if someone is inheriting a firearm or father to son transaction it be processed through a federally licensed firearm dealer with a background check and recordkeeping process.

we also identified a set of recommendations to address what is well established back that very small number of gun dealers contribute to very large problem of -- gun market. the largely due to the fact the set of current federal policies that really do not enable the atf to hold firearm sellers accountable for following the basic rules to keep guns from dangerous people. we also have a set of recommendations in an area that i think is not adequately discussed when we have different policy discussions about guns. and that is taking close look at who should be legally able to possess guns or what we have

found in evidence that we examined is the current conditions for prohibiting firearm purchase are really grossly inadequate and allow a number of individuals who can be quite dangerous to purchase guns, and so we have a number of recommendations for example, prohibiting individuals who have been convicted of violent misdemeanor, from being able to purchase firearms. and other categories of individuals such as individuals who committed a serious violent crime, process through the juvenile court, for being prohibited from purchasing a firearm for an extended period of time. excuse me. we also ask the recommendation general recommendations with respect to mental health and

guns. first and foremost is that the federal restrictions on gun purchases for persons persons with serious mental illness should be focused on the dangerousness of the individual. we think the current law is not focused adequately on danger and has very broad category that doesn't really capture the individuals that really of greatest concern. we also made recommendations on the topic of assault weapons to ban future sale of assault weapons and incorporated a more carefully crafted definition than the prior ban to reduce risk that the law could be evaded as the prior ban was. we also recommended banning the future sale of the possession of large capacity ammunition magazines, those being ammunition magazines that hold

greater than ten rounds of ammunition. .. those of the general recommendations. there are more specific ones that are in our press release. i also, as i alluded to before, the measures that we are

recommending, we did a -- dr. barry levin investigation with beth and myself to look at current public opinion on the very specific kinds of policies because many of the polls were asking too general of questions. we have the specific information on that. dr. barry will be available to answer questions relevant to public support for many of the things that we are recommending. so we can now open it up for questions. again, i will ask, please, to use a microphone and that to define yourself. >> hello. i will make a couple of points related to what they will just said about the public opinion survey research the we have done here at hopkins just over the last two weeks, as terrell

mentioned, we in the weeks following the tragedy at sandy hook we've noticed that much of the public opinion research is done with focusing on general attitudes among the public. we are interested in looking at a broad range of specific policies an understanding support among the general public , among americans to men than among specifics of groups in particular, differences led gun ownership, differences like political party to my identification, and so we conducted just over the last two weeks public opinion survey including 2400 respondents on 31 different public policies to try to understand support. and in brief we found that the majority of americans supported most of the 33 policies that we asked about, including the ban on the sale of assault weapons,

the ban on the sale of large capacity ammunition magazines, a range of measures related to prohibiting persons from having guns, a range of measures related to strengthening background check systems to my range of measures to improve oversight of gun dealers , support for many of these policies was high regardless of political party identification, and for many of these policies the difference between gun owners and non gun hours or smaller than might have been anticipated. we hope that these research findings will provide specific guidance to policymakers in the context of understanding american support for a range of specific policies that are available for adjusting the problem of gun violence, and the takeover message from this research is, there is a broad set of policies that policymakers can choose from that are supported by the

american public. thank you. >> soda if there are questions that anyone has. >> the question is, at this point what is next? you're going to try to get this in the hands of policymakers. is this going to congress or mr. biden's committee right now? >> sure. thank you for your question. yes to our intention and that we will follow through on is the book that we are writing will be delivered directly to members of congress and members of the administration, and we have already been in communication with many of those individuals. >> can you expand upon your

assault weapon proposed ban? will that, as they always say, just put more guns in the arms of criminals and do little to keep people safe? what is your theory behind it? >> our theory behind the need for assault weapon ban is that these are weapons that are designed for military purposes. we believe that they pose a unique threat, particularly with respect to mass shootings, and it is stated support that, that the casualty numbers tend to be larger with such weapons. we believe that citizens have plenty of options available to them to purchase other types of firearms for self protection or sporting use. >> next question.

>> with regard to assault weapons as well, part of the recommendation is, perhaps, maybe a buyback system to make the federal government or something buy these guns from owners because it would be very hard to take guns away from people that already on the. >> and you're absolutely right. barbara kennelly discuss that very difficult question that you raised. we decided that it would be more feasible to ban the future sale of such weapons. however, with respect to a large capacity magazines, we would recommend purchase and possession band of those. yes, that would involve some type of buybacks system. >> could you talk a little bit more about the universal background check portion of it, specifically the inheritance exception and exactly how that would all work? >> sure. i think it is really quite

simple actually. there is a system currently set up under federal law. if you're going to purchase a firearm from a federally licensed dealer it you have to complete a particular form to indicate that you don't fall into any one of the prohibiting categories. you have to submit to and pass a background check. we believe that the general idea behind that has almost universal support of the general notion that you should not be able to purchase a firearm before you have some validation that you have not fallen into one of these prohibiting categories. so if you are up private firearm owner who wants to sell a gun, you would do that through a licensed dealer who would presumably be able to charge a fee for the service. does that answer that question? other questions?

okay. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> this is the concluding press conference from today's the panel's on gun violence. on c-span tonight, including whether second amendment rights and results of a public opinion poll. you can see all of yesterday's coverage of the conference at c-span.org. and president obama will hold a press conference tomorrow on his recommendations on reducing violence. it will involve conversations between vice-president biden and various stakeholders, including business and gun groups. the president live 11:45 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> letter today kansas' sevener

in topeka laying of his priorities for the year. you can see the remarks live at 730 here on it c-span2. and this weekend marks the 57 presidential inauguration. the official swearing-in ceremony at the white house which will happen just before noon eastern. coverage includes your phone calls and begins with a look back at the president's 2009 inaugural address at 10:30 a.m. eastern. on monday, the public inaugural ceremony with the swearing in at the u.s. capitol and other festivities, including the luncheon and the afternoon parade. throughout the day we will take your phone calls and comments on facebook and twitter. live coverage begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> we have been talking about this tree that he had had. he talked about it for years, the american dream.

it had become his dream. he had been in detroit a few months before and talked about, you know, i have a dream. america will someday realize these principles and the declaration of independence. so i think he was just inspired by that moment. >> sunday, clayborne carson recalls his journey as a civil rights activist, participating in the 1963 march on washington. promise historian and editor of martin luther king jr. papers, part of book tv this weekend monday featuring authors and books on the inauguration, president obama, and martin luther king jr. >> now latin-american scholars talk about venezuela president held after the government postponed the inauguration of his fourth term because of a respiratory infection that he contracted while having surgery last month in cuba. you will also hear about future

relations between the u.s. and venezuela at this event hosted by the council of americans. this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> we appreciate that very much. everybody, good morning. like church. that was pretty good. we are very pleased at all of you have chosen to join us on a rather great day here in washington. we hope that the conversation will be a little bit more lively in here that the weather outside , so thank you, again, for taking some time to join us today. ambassadors, congressman, knowledgeable observers all, we are pleased not just with the panel, but frankly, with quality of the audience, which is a very knowledgeable and experienced group of folks who have followed venezuela for some time.

you have a good group of folks that you're talking to, so you will have to be at your best behavior. last thursday, january 10th, venezuelan president was in havana rather that caracas where he was to have taken the oath of office as president of venezuela since dec. ten and he left for cuba for a fourth round of cancer treatment heat and uncharacteristically remained outside the public eye. information about his diagnosis and his prognosis has been scarce. having just reelected chavez to a fourth term on october 7th the people of venezuela and the people of the hemisphere have now begun to face the prospect of a future without him. this is an important moment in hemispheric affairs, in the potential watershed. for the 20 years since he first attempted to gain the venezuelan presidency by force of the 14 years he has served as president

, hugo chavez has placed at -- played an outsize role. his departure from the scene, whenever it occurs, and another us know when that will be, it will have important implications . with that in mind, the council of the americas has sought to bring together today's program as a means to discuss and understand the situation on the ground and what it may pretend both for venezuela and also the other nations of the americas. i am very pleased to have the upper to the to have the lush and office of the council. it is a privilege to be able to welcome all of you to what promises to be a timely and thought-provoking conversation. i must say, we are not just talking to those of us here the road today, but also lead casting this conversation, so we have an audience throughout the hemisphere and, indeed, throughout the united states by c-span command the thank you for tuning in as well. as well as you know, the

situation in venezuela is fluid. even without him, his supporters convened in caracas on thursday for what the washington post called us to go inauguration. echoing venezuelan supreme court, declared that he remains president and that an inauguration can occur at an indeterminate time in the future for their part, the opposition argues that he is incapacitated and that according to the venice drolen constitution of the national assembly had is designated the acting head of the country and that new elections within 30 days required. without the inauguration they argued the man they just unelected has expired and thus has no official role. at this point there is little consensus on the path for based on those two diametrically opposed views. the potential for political instability has increased,

amplified by the deteriorating economic environment. so what happens next? are there some scenarios that are more likely than others? what the implications for venezuela and the international community? what is the legacy for the region? said to help us explore these and other questions, we assembled a top-flight panel, each having deep experience in and knowledge of venezuela. our first panelist is president and editor of the latin american "herald" tribune, a journalist to read through, having worked for a number of leading publications around the world of keen observers. also an effective commentator. widely sought by the press and also the markets. if you follow this will recently , you've probably seen his name popped up many times and some of the press articles. in addition to many awards for journalism and other activities, he is a harry s. truman scholar.

second, charles shapiro, formerly u.s. ambassador to venezuela recently concluded a very successful tenure at the state department as deputy assistant secretary and now has the institute of america is in san diego which the council is part during with next month. we hosted him as a speaker several times, and are delighted to have the opportunity to welcome you back as well. our third panelist as my colleague, senior director for policy and editor-in-chief of the journal of america's quarterly with the council of america's of the york. the experience. he's also widely sought after commentator on hemispheric issues. let's get into it. you just come up to washington for venezuela. you bet on the ground, observers have a drizzly and to get us

going, to get a sense of the situation right now on the ground and what we might be able to anticipate over the term, where is this thing heading? >> there are two different teams. austrian physicist back in 1935, went to england. he produced an experiment based on whether a cat was alive or dead in a box. you did not know, and it could be in both that in this case we don't know whether chavis is alive or dead. that greatly affect what we're seeing last week. we have not heard from him in 35 days. imagine president obama not be in touch, not even a picture or

proof of life for 35 days. it is an amazing scenario. the clause i inauguration he had last week of the tent is kind of a serial addition to that theory because he did not even bother to call it and you know he would have been there. so you have that on one hand. and the additional attention that there is no place for the opposition to go. they have gone to the supreme court. we have a problem with labels. we think of labels and automatically assume that everything in that label is the way everything it is across the world. sadly, it's called the supreme court, so we think it is equal to ours, what and venezuela they were all appointed by job as, so it is not they have a justice that was appointed by a liberal authority or by a conservative majority. they have a number of justices,

and there were all appointed by job as and have been weeded out through the years if they're not loyal to the president. you have a situation where just the opposition has no place to go. at the same time as that one piece is where you have this cereal situation, you have a second situation where because the president is gone and they have established an imperial presidency in venezuela, will dare to call it a dictatorship because he is elected, but nothing gets done without president chavis. so you have a second scenario where you have a president to his ill for the past 18 months. with everything having to go through him and everything being done in reliance on what he says or only happening when he says, you have an economy that is bidding and a control. right now they have a shortage index that has hit 16 percent

this week. last week just to get personal i had to go to three places to get a tour of the paper. they have no cost go. they nationalize that. so there is no eggs, milk. as a matter of fact, an upset we would have the official capability. you can actually see some of the people rushing when the store gets or in a panda mandresh that there is to go. it happens in my office. someone finds out those or has something to promote or eggs, whenever that the need. there were never trying it.

there is no way to resolve that yet is no resolve those problems that could as sect. >> these terms coming together, the transition to the extent it happens because president chavez may be alive and many recovering comeback. so do you sense that the transition, when it happens will be stable, will the peace moves? what is the potential there for a little bit of some of the issues that russell were talking about to scramble things up? >> first of all, the people in the audience here who know more about -- daunted to be talking in front of this crowd. there are so many people here know so much.

i look forward to solve the questions. the question on venezuela, no one knows what is going to happen. the president, nobody knows what transition means. those of us old enough remember saturday night live. still alive, still dead. you know, what does that mean? what is quite clear is that chavez is in really dire health circumstances right now. he may come back. he may not. the inauguration in absentia. the supreme court decision. i would argue, the comments by the -- threatening the opposition last week indicate great concern on the part of government of venezuela. it's going to happen, how it's going to happen have not set

foot in venezuela in nine years. i will defer to those of you who've got different use. an election sooner rather than later. the a done very well in presidential and regional elections. they're organized. obviously they have gotten the organizing mechanism and the government to help get to turn their voters out. the opposition after presidential election took a deep breath and went to the beach and they did very poorly in regional elections. for them to be organized to run an election in the short term

will be very -- it had challenges. in any way, putting down the opposition thing, that's a real challenge to get reorganized to raise the money they need, select a candidate and it going. it's very difficult for them. you have got this strange thing. you have the opposition, which is outraged by a whole bunch of things, but there is no international authority that is going to say, a supreme court must accept the description of the supreme court and its independence or lack thereof, but there is no independent body that will gain a decision by supreme court have any country in the world. not going to do anything. that's not what they do. so the opposition, i think, rightly frustrated by what they need to do is take that energy and focus on getting prepared to

run a presidential election at some point, whether that is in a month or two months or six months. the need to be ready to go. of really glad that you brought into the conversation those points because russell has also talk to high touched on that and chris is a political expert that has done a lot of things about venice rose specifically. you can't beat something with nothing. and so the opposition may have problems with the way things a going forward, what is the realistic alternative that they have in the current environment and to the extent that they really want to contest this, what can they do to move forward? >> first let me echo what charles said. it is somewhat intimidating to be in a room with you in knowing follow this will more than i do. i will quote someone who knows venezuela as well as i do,

8-year-old son. oddly, as i have been called at all hours of the day and night, checking my e-mail and my computer constantly, very obsessed with the health of chavez. the other date he says to hell is that president in the way? well, he is still sick obese sworn in in absentia, were semi's board as president. he says, why don't they just -- 50 system is that legal? and i said interpret tivoli so. it demonstrates that anything can happen. he imagined with the inauguration speech would be. a little less relevant to the discussion here, but the point being is that anything really can happen. so it goes to the point to the opposition, and i tend to disagree a little bit with charles here about where they or should they gain.

they have in a place called honduras. the minority. it was a group. we're in a weaker state of being allowed to criticize was going on. it's amazing to me the secretary-general when as this time whether he should criticize or concern the road is going on with obama, criticizing, talk to the supreme court what congress said. that same situation. >> why is that? why is that iraq i think in part actually this just that to close. it has come up wraparound the actual polarization.

i think the one thing we can take away from this whole situation is that bullies when. as much as we believe. nothing more. basically he can call people up and humiliate them and bash them, and it does manage you intimidate governments and leaders radical institutions. i think that is a problem. we all feel what could happen. of the -- of 81 should have called what happened a coup. it was, but the fact that no one raised the question of what this meant for their respective the letter. it is not the spirit of the constitution. it was very sad. worse, and this is a government that is very good. always staying a few -- shades

of gray, and not the novel, but consistently named supreme court justices violating procedures, and consistently now -- if it comes to an election let me venture a guess, the constitution requires an election be held within 30 days. if their wives a little bit with in five, still within the letter of the law. i think what is sad is what happened, the decision of the supreme court is that there were over 4 million people whose voices were not heard. we are not talking about -- the people that were sworn in only represented about 45 percent of the people. if chavez is the people he's only 45 percent of the people, and that's the problem. the problem as to where they are gaining. if anyone saw the declaration signed i